R. v. Nicholson

R. v. Nicholson

The application is dismissed because the ITO contained sufficient information to support production order PO 2930; the Abbotsford Police investigation, including search warrants and searches, corroborated informant information and were properly relied upon, and the officer was not required to include every background detail in the ITO; therefore no s.8 breach was made out.

Citation
2016 BCSC 1267
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Christopher Michael Makoto Nicholson
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Charter Application Challenging Production Order (s.8) / Decision on Application (judgment)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Production Orders, Section 8 Charter, Information to Obtain (ito), Judicial Authorization, Informant Corroboration, Standing to Challenge Third‑party Records
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Privacy Law Search and Seizure Production Orders Section 8 Charter Information to Obtain (ito) +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Christopher Michael Makoto Nicholson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Charter Application Challenging Production Order (s.8) / Decision on Application (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether issuance of production order PO 2930 violated s.8 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the information to obtain (ITO) was sufficient to authorize the production order
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has standing to challenge the order despite records thought to belong to a third party

Ratio Decidendi

The application is dismissed because the ITO contained sufficient information to support production order PO 2930; the Abbotsford Police investigation, including search warrants and searches, corroborated informant information and were properly relied upon, and the officer was not required to include every background detail in the ITO; therefore no s.8 breach was made out.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • No declaration that s.8 of the Charter was violated in relation to PO 2930; production order PO 2930 upheld