R. v. Harmes

R. v. Harmes

On an objective assessment of the totality of the ITO — including the affiant's disclosed experience, Informant A's pedigree and corroboration by surveillance showing repeated short‑duration visits, movement of duffle bags, and direct travel between the Garden Street and Columbia Street residences — there were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2022 BCSC 262
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Christopher Leigh Harmes; Accused: Scott William Cashman; Accused: Margaret Iris Scholar
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Charges Under Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Criminal Code (search Warrant Challenge) / Voir Dire — Challenge to Validity of CDSA S.11 Search Warrant (facial and Sub‑facial)
Outcome
Application dismissed; search warrant for Columbia Street Residence upheld
Legal Topics
Search Warrant Validity, Informant Reliability, Reasonable and Probable Grounds, Rule Against Narrative, Facial and Sub‑facial Challenge
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Search and Seizure Evidence Search Warrant Validity Informant Reliability Reasonable and Probable Grounds Rule Against Narrative Facial and Sub‑facial Challenge

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Christopher Leigh Harmes

Accused

Scott William Cashman

Accused

Margaret Iris Scholar

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Charges Under Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Criminal Code (search Warrant Challenge) / Voir Dire — Challenge to Validity of CDSA S.11 Search Warrant (facial and Sub‑facial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the ITO sufficiently particularize the place to be searched (sub‑facial challenge)?
  2. 2 Was the affiant's experience adequately disclosed to allow inferences from surveillance?
  3. 3 Was Informant A sufficiently reliable and corroborated?

Ratio Decidendi

On an objective assessment of the totality of the ITO — including the affiant's disclosed experience, Informant A's pedigree and corroboration by surveillance showing repeated short‑duration visits, movement of duffle bags, and direct travel between the Garden Street and Columbia Street residences — there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe evidence of CDSA offences would be located at the Columbia Street Residence; therefore the issuing justice could have validly issued the s.11 warrant and the applicants' facial and sub‑facial challenges fail.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; search warrant for Columbia Street Residence upheld

Orders

  • Application dismissed; search warrant for Columbia Street Residence upheld