R. v. Bottomley

2022 BCSC 578 R. v. Bottomley IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Bottomley, 2022 BCSC 578 Date: 20220407 Docket: X083239 Registry: New Westminster Regina v. Jordan Robert James Bottomley Restriction on publication: A publication ban has been imposed under s. 486.5 of the Criminal Code restricting publication, broadcasting or transmission in any way information that could identify the witness referred to as A.B. This publication ban applies indefinitely unless otherwise ordered. Corrected Judgment: The front page was corrected on April 8, 2022. The judgment has been anonymized to comply with the publication ban on June 28, 2023. Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Devlin Reasons for Judgment - Challenge to Validity of General Warrant Counsel for the Crown: Christopher McPherson, Q.C. Drew Beesley Counsel for Accused Bottomley: Glen Orris, Q.C. Mark J. Swartz Vanessa L. de Jong Place and Date of Voir Dire: New Westminster, B.C. March 21, 22 and 30, 2022 Place and Date of Ruling given to Parties with Reasons to Follow: New Westminster, B.C. March 30, 2022 Place and Date of Judgment: New Westminster, B.C. April 7, 2022 Introduction [1] The accused, Jordan Bottomley, is charged together with Mr. Hothi and Mr. Hayer on Indictment 83239-1 with the first degree murder of Andrew Baldwin on or about November 11, 2019 in Surrey, B.C. A fourth accused, Mr. Basran, is charged with being accessory after the fact to murder. [2] Mr. Baldwin was stabbed to death inside the residence of his friend, A.B. A.B. tried to defend Mr. Baldwin by hitting the assailant with a machete. A.B. managed to hit the assailant around the neck area, drawing blood, before the assailant fled the scene. [3] On this application, Mr. Bottomley challenges the validity of an information to obtain ("ITO") filed in support of an application for a general warrant pursuant to s. 487.01 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 [Code]. The general warrant authorized the police to conduct a visual examination of Mr. Bottomley's body to locate and photograph any recent wounds, injuries, and/or scarring. Mr. Bottomley challenges both the sub-facial and facial validity of the warrant. [4] The applicant's challenge to the sub-facial validity of the ITO was focused on the affiant's description of what he viewed on the Surrey traffic camera video. I granted leave to cross-examine the affiant on a limited basis. The applicant also challenged the facial validity of the ITO on the basis that it did not establish reasonable and probable grounds to believe that he was involved in the stabbing. He submits a careful review of the sequence of events as depicted on the surveillance video establishes that the elapsed time did not align with the affiant's description of events. He also submits the ITO is replete with speculation and unsupported conclusions connecting him to the murder scene. Accordingly, Mr. Bottomley submits the physical examination of his person infringed s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), c. 11 [Charter]. If the breach is established, he intends to apply to have the evidence excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter. [5] The Crown's position is that the ITO provides reasonable and probable grounds to support the issuance of the general warrant. They submit there was nothing elicited during the cross-examination of the affiant that detracts from the grounds for the warrant. Further, the Crown submits the ITO contains sufficient information from which the authorizing justice could be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to authorize the general warrant to examine Mr. Bottomley for injuries. [6] On March 30, 2022, I advised the parties that the application was dismissed with reasons to follow. These are those reasons. Evidence on the Voir Dire Sub-Facial Challenge (Cross Examination of Cpl. Hong) [7] As stated earlier, I granted the applicant leave to cross-examine the affiant, Cpl. Hong, on the narrow issue of what he viewed on the Surrey City traffic video with reference to paragraph 43 of the ITO. Before Cpl. Hong reviewed the video in court, he was asked to review three Google Maps images - two were aerial views of the area around Old Yale Road and 124th Street in Surrey, and the third was a Google Maps street view in the vicinity of 12359 Old Yale Road. Cpl. Hong agreed that these images depict the location in and around 12359 Old Yale Road and 124th Street, Surrey. The Google Maps street view clearly shows a yellow house at 12359 Old Yale Road. The video was then played and Cpl. Hong explained what he saw unfold on the video, which was consistent with the summary contained in para. 43. Although I granted leave to cross-examine Cpl. Hong about the video, he was asked few questions. During re-examination, Cpl. Hong explained that he viewed the video multiple times, conducting a frame by frame review, and often stopping and reviewing portions to ensure his observations were accurate. Cpl. Hong pointed out where in the video he saw movements and changes in the lighting around the truck, which led him to conclude that the figure he observed standing on Old Yale Road entered the truck, and at 14:43:58, the truck turned left from Old Yale Road onto 124 Street, heading in the direction of the crime scene at 10755-124th Street, Surrey. Facial Validity (Review of the ITO) [8] The warrant was granted based on a 43-page ITO sworn by RCMP Cpl. Hong (then Cst. Hong). The ITO was filed as Exhibit #1 on this application. The ITO details the investigation, which began following a 9-1-1 call of a stabbing inside a residence in Surrey, B.C. on November 11, 2019. The residence was located at 10755 124th Street, within a business compound. [9] The contents of the ITO were canvassed by the parties during submissions. The ITO is organized into sections, beginning with background information and a summary of the investigation at paras. 13-21. Starting at para. 22, the affiant sets out the details of the investigation, which consisted of numerous witness statements from A.B. (who was an eye witness to the stabbing), as well as from other people associated to the deceased, including his mother and former girlfriend. These statements provided information regarding the deceased's involvement with the drug trade, debts that he owed, and conflicts with associates. Details of events prior to the stabbing were obtained from surveillance videos and Surrey traffic camera video footage of the area in the vicinity of Old Yale Road and 124th Street in Surrey; these details form another important component of the ITO. Another important component was the information obtained from various police databases regarding the deceased and his associates, including the applicant. [10] I will consider the contents of the ITO in detail during my analysis but will first canvass the legal principles to be applied on a review of the validity of a search warrant. The Legal Framework Statutory Requirements for a General Warrant [11] Section 487.01(1) of the Code authorizes a judge to issue a general warrant permitting the police to use a "technique or procedure or do any thing described in the warrant that would, if not authorized, constitute an unreasonable search or seizure in respect of a person ". Section 487.01(1) states as follows: 487.01(1) Information for general warrant [A judge may issue a general warrant] if (a) the judge is satisfied by information on oath in writing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and that information concerning the offence will be obtained through the use of the technique, procedure or device or the doing of the thing; (b) the judge is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the warrant; and (c) there is no other provision in this or any other Act of Parliament that would provide for a warrant, authorization or order permitting the technique, procedure or device to be used or the thing to be done. [12] The issue on this application is whether the ITO establishes reasonable grounds to believe that examining and photographing the applicant would generate information about Mr. Baldwin's murder. The Governing Legal Principles [13] The parties agree as to the legal principles that govern a review of the validity of a general warrant. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Garofoli, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421, 1990 CanLII 52 (SCC) [Garofoli] sets out the test for the reviewing judge in determining whether a search warrant was properly issued. The inquiry is whether, based on a review of the contents of the ITO, as amplified on review, the issuing justice could have granted the warrant (Garofoli at 1452, per Sopinka J.). The reviewing judge must determine whether the ITO contains sufficient credible and reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed, on the basis of which the authorizing justice could have concluded that the statutory preconditions for the general warrant had been met: see Garofoli at 1452; see also R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8 at para. 40; R. v. Wilson, 2011 BCCA 252 at para. 39. [14] In R. v. Liu, 2014 BCCA 166, after thoroughly canvassing the law applicable to reviewing the issuance of a search warrant, Justice Garson (for the Court) summarized the legal framework to be applied in determining the facial validity of a warrant as follows: [39] I would summarize the main points from this jurisprudence in the following way: - The trial judge's role in reviewing the validity of a search warrant is to consider whether the material filed in support of the warrant, as amplified on review, could support the issuance of the warrant. -The trial judge should examine the information in its totality, not on a piece meal basis, in a "practical, non-technical, and common sense basis". - The question is not whether the reviewing judge would have granted the order, but whether there was an objective basis on which the issuing justice could have done so. - The appropriate standard is one of "reasonable probability" rather than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" or "prima facie case". The phrase "reasonable belief" also approximates the requisite standard. - Reasonable grounds may be said to exist at "the point at which credibly-based probability replaces suspicion". [Emphasis in original.] [15] In addition to the legal principles set out above, at paras. 66-68 of R. v. Ferguson, 2018 BCSC 490, Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten (as she then was) canvassed some additional principles that inform my analysis: In reviewing the warrant, I must take into account "that authorizing justices may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence in the ITO; the informant need not underline the obvious": R. v. Vu, 2013 SCC 60, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 657 (S.C.C.) at para. 16; R. v. Sanchez, [1994] O.J. No. 2260 (Ont. Ct. of Justice) at para. 22. Moreover, as explained in CanadianOxy Chemicals Ltd. v. Canada, I am to remain cognizant of the fact that s. 487(1) of the Criminal Code does not require of police that they show the search will produce direct evidence of the offences named in the warrant. Rather, s. 487(1) has been broadly construed and authorizes police to "locate, examine and preserve all the evidence relevant to events which may have given rise to criminal liability" for the named offences: CanadianOxy Chemicals Ltd. v. Canada at para. 22. [Emphasis added.] This includes evidence that would serve to rebut a possible defence: at para. 27. [16] To determine whether reasonable grounds exist, a trial judge must consider the totality of the circumstances: R. v. Whitaker, 2008 BCCA 174 at para. 41 (leave to appeal ref'd: [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 296). As Justice Ker stated in R. v. Latimer, 2020 BCSC 2173 [Latimer] at para. 28, "[d]econstruction, parsing, dissection, or microscopic analysis of the paragraphs or averments in the ITO is to be eschewed. All the grounds must be assessed together as a whole". [17] With these principles in mind, I turn to my analysis. Analysis [18] In conducting my analysis, I will address the specific issues raised by the applicant, mindful of the legal principles discussed earlier in these reasons. Sub-Facial Validity: Did the video surveillance provide grounds to support the issuance of the warrant? [19] The applicant submits that the video footage does not provide any grounds to support the issuance of the general warrant. They submit there is no connection between the video footage, the crime scene, and the applicant. Further, they submit the sequence of events on the video does not support the affiant's theory; in particular, they say it was not possible for the applicant to travel between all of the areas were he was allegedly observed - and also commit the stabbing - in the given amount of time. [20] At paras. 41-43, the affiant sets out the results of the video surveillance obtained by investigators. There were two sources of video: Surveillance footage between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. at 12403 Old Yale Road, and footage from a Surrey traffic camera video in the area of 124th Street and Old Yale Road. The affiant relied on Cst. Audet's report of his review of the surveillance footage, but he conducted his own review of the Surrey traffic camera footage in addition to considering Cpl. Sajan's report. Together, these videos provide a sequence of events on November 11, 2019, between 16:41 and 16:49, as follows: · at 16:41, a dark figure is observed standing around on the north side of Old Yale Road near 124th Street (para 42(c), Hong testimony); · at 16:42, a truck pulled up in front of what the affiant believed to be 12359 Old Yale Road, where a person entered the truck from the passenger side (para. 42(d),(f), Hong testimony). I note Cpl. Sajan's report says 12369 Old Yale Road; · at 16:43:44, the truck pulled away, made a U-turn, and at 16:43:58, turned left, heading northbound on 124th Street (para. 43, Hong testimony); · at 16:44, a light-coloured pickup truck drove northbound on 124th Street and turned left onto Lien Road, disappearing from view. A few seconds later, a person is observed walking southbound on 124th Street from the area where the pickup truck was last seen. The person was wearing all dark clothing. The person walked past the SB Truck yard before disappearing from view (para. 41); and · at 16:49, the suspect was observed walking northbound on 124th Street and turns left onto Lien Road, which was the area where the pickup truck was last seen. [21] Although Cpl. Sajan's report stated he conducted a Google Maps search and believed the truck stopped at 12369 Old Yale Road, Cst. Hong explained in the ITO that he conducted a Google Maps search and noted at 12359 Old Yale Road was a yellow house. This corresponded to the information from Mr. Juckes, who told investigators that a person he referred to as "Sherman" lived in a yellow house on Old Yale Road and was involved in the murder. The house at 12359 Old Yale Road was yellow. Unlike the other buildings in that area of Old Yale Road, this house did not have a driveway, which would explain why the truck pulled over to the side of Old Yale Road. Cpl. Hong was asked about Cpl. Sajan's report, which stated that at 16:49:45, he observed a similar truck at 110th Ave and 120th Street. Cpl. Hong acknowledged that was what Cpl. Sajan's report stated and nothing further was elicited from him on this point in cross-examination. [22] The applicant argues there are several problems with the affiant's reliance on this video footage. Firstly, he argues the video did not show the truck stopping near the scene, nor anyone getting out of the truck, so it is speculative to conclude that the truck observed turning onto Lien Road was associated to the crime. Secondly, he argues there was insufficient time for the suspect to have walked from the area of Lien Road to the scene, commit the stabbing, and then walk back towards Lien Road where the truck was last observed. Further, he relies on the portion of Cpl. Sajan's report that said he saw a similar truck in the area of 110th Avenue and 120th Street at 16:49:45. [23] As I discussed earlier, there was nothing arising in Cpl. Hong's testimony that detracts from the contents of his ITO. Indeed, as demonstrated in the various Google maps that were shown to Cst. Hong, it is clear that the distance between 12359 (or 12369) Old Yale Road, the crime scene, and Lien Road is relatively close, although he was not asked about the exact distance. I see no merit in the applicant's submission that it was not possible for a person to walk from Lien Road to the scene, stab Mr. Baldwin, and then walk back to the vicinity of Lien Road. In my view, there was a basis for the issuing justice to reasonably infer that the person observed on the video being picked up by a truck on Old Yale Road was the same person who is seen moments later walking towards the scene, and then a few moments later walking away from the area of the scene on 124th Street. With respect to Cpl. Sajan's notation at 16:49:45, I note that Cpl. Hong was careful not to speculate that the individual was walking back to the truck seen earlier turn onto Lien Road. Rather at para. 41(e), with reference to Cst. Audet's report, he notes the person "appeared to turn left on to Lien Road, the area where the pickup truck was last seen". Considering all of the video footage, while there may be other inferences available, this inference was reasonable. [24] Further, the affiant's reliance on the video footage is just one component of his grounds in the ITO. As will be discussed further, the ITO contains other information regarding the connection between the applicant and the residence at 12359 Old Yale Road. In my view, to engage in the analysis as suggested by the applicant would be to dissect the ITO in a piecemeal fashion. This is precisely the kind of "microscopic analysis" that Latimer cautions against (para. 28). I decline to approach my analysis by considering a portion of the ITO in isolation, at the exclusion of all other sections. Facial Validity: Was there sufficient information in the ITO to identify the applicant as a suspect? [25] The applicant argues the ITO does not contain sufficient information to satisfy the issuing justice that there was a basis to believe the applicant was the suspect. While they acknowledge there is some information that relates to the applicant, they submit it would be speculative to conclude that he was the suspect. However, in my view a careful review of the ITO demonstrates that there was a substantial body of information from which the issuing justice could have inferred that the applicant was in fact the person who stabbed Mr. Baldwin, and who was injured by A.B. in the process. [26] I begin with a review of the information provided by A.B., the eye-witness to the stabbing and a friend of the deceased. A.B. provided several statements to the police, beginning when the police attended at the scene on November 11, 2019 (paras. 24-26, 31-35). A.B. stated the following: · Mr. Baldwin and A.B. were sitting inside the residence when a male suspect kicked the door open and immediately began stabbing Mr. Baldwin. While Mr. Baldwin was being stabbed, A.B. grabbed his machete and began hitting the suspect in the arms and neck area. The suspect started to spray the entire area with bear spray until A.B. knocked the can out of his hand. A.B. struck the suspect numerous times with his machete and the suspect fled the residence (paras. 24-26, 31). · A.B. stated he hit the suspect with the machete across the back of the head and because he hit the suspect's neck with his machete, the suspect may have an injury to his neck (para. 25(i)). When he hit the suspect in the neck, he saw two big spurts of blood (para. 31(a)(viii)). · A.B. said he called 9-1-1 approximately 60 seconds after the suspect left (31(a)(i)). [27] A.B. also provided a description of the suspect: · The suspect was a large white male, approximately 6'1" tall, wearing a black hoody with the hood up and last seen beside a beige Toyota sedan parked on the west side of 124th Street, north of Winram Road (para. 25(g)). · The suspect was a white male, dressed in all black clothing, including a black hoodie and possibly wearing a mask (para. 26(e)(i)). · The suspect was a Caucasian male, about the same size as Mr. Baldwin, wearing dark clothing and a hoody up (para. 31(a)(xii)). · The suspect may be injured, with blood gushing from his neck (para. 26(e)(ii)). · The suspect used a short knife and may have been wearing a helmet because hitting the suspect on the head as well as his body with the machete had no effect (para. 26(e)(iv)). [28] At paragraph 30, the affiant states that examination of the crime scene located several drops of blood both inside and outside the gate at the residence. This would support A.B.'s belief that the assailant was injured and bleeding from his neck as a result of the injury from the machete. [29] A.B. also stated he believed the stabbing of Mr. Baldwin was related to a stolen Camaro and that Mr. Baldwin's brother was killed after he located the person who stole the Camaro (para. 26(e)(v)). The affiant notes that Mr. Baldwin's brother, Keith Baldwin, was murdered in October 2019. [30] While being transported to the Surrey RCMP detachment for examination, A.B. advised the police officers that he believed Andrew Baldwin owed someone money. He said that the day before, Mr. Baldwin had a phone call with someone who told him "you're next". A.B. believed this was in connection to the death of Keith Baldwin. A.B. advised that Mr. Baldwin's mother was glad Mr. Baldwin was staying with him. A.B. also explained that he had been reserved when providing his initial account to the police, as he was terrified immediately after the incident. [31] On November 12, 2019, A.B. provided further information to the police regarding Mr. Baldwin as set out at para. 33: He noted that approximately two hours before he was murdered, Mr. Baldwin received a phone call. Mr. Baldwin then left for a while and shortly after he returned, the suspect entered the residence and attacked him. A.B. explained that Mr. Baldwin was a drug dealer and had recently begun using drugs. [32] On November 13, 2019, A.B. provided another statement in which he explained he knew Mr. Baldwin as "Josh" and first met him in 2012, when he bought drugs from him. He provided some further details about the hours leading up to the incident, including that Mr. Baldwin left the residence around 3:00 p.m. to speak to someone in a vehicle on the street. Approximately two hours later the suspect burst into the residence and started to stab Mr. Baldwin. A.B. believed the vehicle was possibly silver or grey; he believed it was an SUV or a truck, based on the sound of the engine. A.B. also stated that Mr. Baldwin use to live with a guy who leased a Jeep and Mr. Baldwin crashed the Jeep. I note that A.B.'s information regarding the timing of the incident aligns with the video footage depicting events just before 5:00 p.m. detailed at para. 41-43 of the ITO. [33] Paragraph 35 sets out further information A.B. provided to the police on November 15, 2019. A.B. contacted the police and advised that he had been thinking about the interaction with the attacker and had a "weird vibe" that the attacker might be "Sheldon"; he provided a description of Sheldon. He also advised that Sheldon's girlfriend was "Nikki". A.B. also advised: · He met Sheldon around five times in the past and had helped Sheldon bring a scooter up the stairs at "Yogi's" residence in September 2019; · He said Baldwin and Sheldon knew each other and had lived together with "Yogi" for a period; and · A.B. did not know of any issues between Sheldon and Baldwin. [34] In a notation at the end of paragraph 35, the affiant explained that based on C/M Sutherland's police reports, he believed that "Sheldon" (as he was referred to by A.B.) was Bottomley. The applicant submits this is a conclusory statement and cannot be relied upon to establish that "Sheldon" was indeed the applicant, nor could it support the conclusion that the applicant was Mr. Baldwin's assailant. As I discuss later in these reasons, there is a body of information to support the affiant's belief that Sheldon was the applicant. I will discuss the contents of C/M Sutherland's reports later in these reasons. [35] At paragraph 36, the affiant set out information the police obtained from Nicole Wagner, Mr. Baldwin's former girlfriend. Ms. Wagner provided some information about Mr. Baldwin owing a debt, which appeared to be associated to his drug dealing in Surrey. She also advised investigators of the following: · A person named "Yogi" was approached by someone who offered him money for Mr. Baldwins' current whereabouts, but "Yogi" refused to give him up; · Yogi's phone number was 604-375-7164; and · She believed A.B. should know the suspect. [36] At paragraph 37, the affiant set out the information obtain from "Yogi", who police had identified as Yogendran Nair. Mr. Nair advised that Mr. Baldwin lived in his basement suite about 1.5 years ago, for a period of time. During that time, Mr. Nair lent Mr. Baldwin two vehicles, which he crashed. He also stated that about two months ago, Mr. Baldwin's mother had come to the residence to take Mr. Baldwin to rehab. [37] On November 12, 2019, the police obtained a statement from Jennifer Reid. Ms. Reid identified Mr. Baldwin as Josh. She advised that Mr. Baldwin told her he was living with A.B. because he was hiding out. She said he told her not to disclose his whereabouts. Ms. Reid also stated that Mr. Baldwin was a drug dealer and drug user (para. 38). [38] At para. 39, the affiant detailed the information provided by Julie MacDonald, Mr. Baldwin's mother. Ms. MacDonald stated that she last saw her son on November 9, 2019 when she attended the area of Old Yale Road and 124th Street. I note this aligns with A.B.'s information that Mr. Baldwin has been residing with him at the residence on 124th Street. She said that Mr. Baldwin owed $1500 to "Mani/Roop" and a larger debt to another unknown person. She also stated that "Mani/Roop" and "Sheldon", a roommate of Mr. Baldwin's, were after him. She said that Sheldon's real name was Jordan and he was from Surrey. She also advised that Ms. Wagner should have Sheldon's phone number. Ms. MacDonald provided Mr. Baldwin's phone number. I note that both Ms. MacDonald and A.B. refer to a person named Sheldon connected to Mr. Baldwin and drug activity. [39] At paragraph 40, the affiant details the information provided by Robert Juckes. On November 13, 2019, Mr. Juckes approached a police officer at the scene and stated that the word on the street was the murder was connected to a drug debt. Mr. Juckes also stated that Mr. Baldwin had a roommate or roommates at a residence near Maple Pizza; he said Mr. Baldwin's mother would have more information (para. 49(j)). As a result of this information, on November 14, 2019, Cpl. Sangha and Cpl. Kim met with Mr. Juckes, at which time Mr. Juckes provided them with a piece of paper with details of the murder and said "Sherman" committed the murder (para. 40(c)). Mr. Juckes stated that there was a house near Maple Pizza occupied by three roommates: "Yogi", Mr. Baldwin, and a drug dealer roommate named "Sherman", to whom Mr. Baldwin owed money. Mr. Juckes said Mr. Baldwin was hiding out from "Sherman" when "Sherman" found and murdered him. Mr. Juckes stated that "Sherman" now lived in a yellow house on Old Yale Road. The paper had a rough map of the location. Mr. Juckes did not wish to provide the source of his information. [40] While the information from Mr. Juckes referred to "Sherman", his description of the yellow house on Old Yale Road aligns with the affiant's review of the Surrey traffic camera video and Google maps, which establish that a person in dark clothing was picked up near a yellow house at 12359 Old Yale Road. The association of Mr. Baldwin to "Yogi" and a drug dealer named Sheldon align with the information from Ms. MacDonald, Mr. Nair, and A.B., except Mr. Juckes identified the person as Sherman, rather than Sheldon. [41] In addition to the details obtained from the witness statements, the affiant set out other investigative steps taken. These steps provided further information linking Mr. Baldwin with Sheldon, and ultimately the applicant, Jordan Bottomley. The examination of Baldwin's cell phone revealed that the phone number 778-650-2979 was saved under the name "Sheldon" (para. 44-45, 52(c), 52(d)). [42] At paragraph 52, the affiant details his review of C/M Sutherland's report, which set out various sources of information relevant to the investigation. The Cellebrite extraction report for Ms. MacDonald's phone included a message from Mr. Baldwin to Ms. MacDonald, which referred to both "Yogi" and "Sheldon". This is a further link between Mr. Baldwin and Sheldon. Additionally, A.B.'s phone had a number for "Yogi" and this number was determined to be associated to Nair. All of these details inform the reliability of Mr. Juckes' unsourced information about the relationship of Mr. Baldwin to both Yogi and the person he identified as Sherman. Further database inquires for Mr. Nair revealed that in September 2019, he was checked by police in a vehicle with Jordan Bottomley. While there are few details associated with this finding, it is apparent that it came from a police report in the database. The database inquiry also showed that an alias for Bottomley was "Sheldon Renatti". While the ITO does not set out the source of the alias, further inquiries done by C/M Sutherland provide a link: C/M Sutherland located a Facebook profile in the name Sheldon Renatti. "Makayla Bottomley" was listed as a friend on Sheldon Renatti's Facebook page - this is the same name as Bottomley's sister. Another person listed as a Facebook friend was Yogi Nair, which is noted as likely the profile for Mr. Nair. This is another link between Yogi and Sherman. In addition, another police file reported that Mr. Bottomley and Mr. Baldwin were carded together by the Surrey RCMP. Although no date is provided, a police file with reference to 2017 is listed. This establishes a further link between Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Bottomley. [43] I agree with the applicant that the source of some of C/M Sutherland's information lacks specific detail. However, when considered together with other independent facts obtained during the investigation, the information set out in para. 52 would assist the issuing justice in determining whether there was sufficient information to connect the name Sheldon to the applicant. [44] Cpl. Hong also included details from review of police files regarding Jordan Bottomley (paras. 53-55). On June 22, 2017, police attended an address in Surrey at the request of Court Bailiff Services due to drugs being present. Listed on the lease were Jordan Bottomley and Nicole Clarkson. This is further information associating Mr. Bottomley to drug activity. On August 21, 2019, Mr. Bottomley was arrested by Vancouver Police and was found to be carrying bear spray, three knives, and a hatchet. As noted earlier, information from A.B. and the police officers who attended the crime scene establish that the assailant deployed bear spray during the attack. It is of some significance that Mr. Bottomley was found to be in possession of bear spray two months prior to the incident. [45] These various sources of information, when considered in their totality, establish a compelling link between Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Bottomley, and the person identified as Sheldon, who was ultimately determined to be Mr. Bottomley. In my view, the issuing justice could have drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence in the ITO to conclude that the applicant was Mr. Baldwin's assailant. I am persuaded that the following information viewed in a practical, common sense fashion could have satisfied the statutory preconditions for the issuance of the warrant: · A.B. advised that Mr. Baldwin was a drug dealer who owed someone money. The day before the stabbing, Mr. Baldwin had received a call telling him "you're next". Ms. MacDonald stated that Mr. Baldwin owed "Mani/Roop" $1500, and he owed a larger debt to someone else. Ms. MacDonald said both "Mani/Roop" and Sheldon were after Mr. Baldwin. Mr. Juckes also stated that Mr. Baldwin owed Sherman money, and that he was hiding out from Sherman when he was murdered. As stated earlier, although Mr. Juckes refers to Sherman and not Sheldon, and although he did not provide the source of his information, the rest of his information is corroborated by either other witnesses or video footage. · Both A.B. and Ms. MacDonald identified Sheldon as a former roommate of Mr. Baldwin's. A.B. said Mr. Baldwin, Sheldon, and Yogi had lived together and he had once helped Sheldon bring a scooter up the stairs at Yogi's residence. Mr. Nair (Yogi) confirmed that Mr. Baldwin had lived with him until two months ago, when Mr. Baldwin's mother took him away to rehab. In addition, Mr. Juckes stated that Mr. Baldwin, Yogi, and a drug dealer named "Sherman" had all lived together; Mr. Juckes said that Mr. Baldwin owed Sherman money. · A.B. described having a "weird vibe" that the killer may be Sheldon. A.B. explained that he looked into the person's eyes as the incident was unfolding, and based on his familiarity with Sheldon from his past association, he identified Sheldon as the possible killer. While I acknowledge the fact that a "weird vibe" would not be sufficient on its own, when considered with all of the other information, it does provide some basis to support a finding that Sheldon/Jordan Bottomley was the assailant. · The video footage showed a person standing outside the vicinity of a yellow house on Old Yale Road who was picked up by a pickup truck, driven up 124th Street past A.B.'s house, and then the truck is seen turning onto Lien Road. Moments later, the person walks along 124th Street in the direction of A.B.'s house, and then, moments later, they are seen again walking back towards Lien Road. It was open for the issuing justice to infer the person who was picked up near the yellow house on Old Yale Road was the same person observed in the vicinity of A.B.'s residence. In addition, Mr. Juckes stated that Sherman lived in a yellow house on Old Yale Road. The Google street view map established that there was a yellow house at 12359 Old Yale Road, which corresponds to the area shown on the Surrey traffic video reviewed by the affiant. Collectively this information supports an inference that the assailant came from the yellow house on Old Yale Road. · Police database information linked Mr. Nair (Yogi) and Mr. Bottomley in a vehicle together in September 2019. Further, Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Bottomley were checked together by Surrey RCMP in 2017. Ms. MacDonald and Mr. Juckes both stated that Mr. Baldwin, Yogi and Sheldon/Sherman were roommates. The database information also indicated that Mr. Bottomley had an alias: "Sheldon Renatti". Sheldon Renatti's Facebook page established links to both Mr. Bottomley and Mr. Nair. In addition, Ms. MacDonald stated that Sheldon's first name was Jordan. [46] It is important to remember that the issuing justice is expected to apply practical, common sense when assessing whether the statutory pre-conditions to issue the warrant have been met. While I agree with the applicants that there are some deficiencies in the drafting of the ITO, they did not detract from the sufficiency of the record. Based on my consideration of the totality of the circumstances, I am satisfied there was a body of information that was capable of supporting a finding that the person referred to as Sheldon and Sherman was Mr. Bottomley. This information was also capable of supporting the inference that Mr. Bottomley was the person who was injured by A.B. during the incident. Conclusion [47] I am satisfied that the issuing justice could have concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant was involved in the murder. I am further satisfied that the issuing judge could have found reasonable grounds to believe examining Mr. Bottomley's person for injuries would generate information about the offence. [48] Accordingly, the application is dismissed. "Devlin J."