R. v. Anthony and Trembley

R. v. Anthony and Trembley

The ITO, as excised to remove key fob and Form K tenancy information and as properly amplified for minor good‑faith errors, established reasonable grounds that drug trafficking offences were occurring and that Taxi V41 and the named targets were implicated, but it did not establish a credibly‑based probability connecting offence‑related property to the specific suites (Suite 1526‑933 Hornby and Suite 3501‑1283 Howe); consequently the issuing justice could not have validly authorized the search warrants for those specific suites and the searches constituted breaches of the applicants' s.8 Charter rights.

Citation
2024 BCSC 1622
Parties
Crown: Rex; Applicant/accused: Quintin Jerome Anthony; Applicant/accused: Jordan Gregory Trembley
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Criminal Code Offences / Voir Dire (facial Challenge to Search Warrants)
Outcome
Applications successful: court found the ITO, as excised and amplified, did not provide a credibly‑based probability that evidence of the drug offences would be found in Suite 1526‑933 Hornby or Suite 3501‑1283 Howe; s.8 Charter breaches found for both applicants.
Legal Topics
Search Warrant Validity, S.8 Charter Unreasonable Search, S.11 CDSA Search Warrants, Garofoli Standard of Review, Production Orders and Excisions, Tracking Warrants, Covert Surveillance, Affiant Reliance on Hearsay
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter (s.8) Search and Seizure Drug Offences Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Search Warrant Validity S.8 Charter Unreasonable Search S.11 CDSA Search Warrants +5 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Crown

Quintin Jerome Anthony

Applicant/accused

Jordan Gregory Trembley

Applicant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Criminal Code Offences / Voir Dire (facial Challenge to Search Warrants)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ITO, as excised and amplified, established reasonable and probable grounds that drug offences had been committed
  2. 2 Whether the ITO, as excised and amplified, established a credibly‑based probability that evidence of the offences would be found in Suite 1526-933 Hornby
  3. 3 Whether the ITO, as excised and amplified, established a credibly‑based probability that evidence of the offences would be found in Suite 3501-1283 Howe

Ratio Decidendi

The ITO, as excised to remove key fob and Form K tenancy information and as properly amplified for minor good‑faith errors, established reasonable grounds that drug trafficking offences were occurring and that Taxi V41 and the named targets were implicated, but it did not establish a credibly‑based probability connecting offence‑related property to the specific suites (Suite 1526‑933 Hornby and Suite 3501‑1283 Howe); consequently the issuing justice could not have validly authorized the search warrants for those specific suites and the searches constituted breaches of the applicants' s.8 Charter rights.

Court Disposition

Applications successful: court found the ITO, as excised and amplified, did not provide a credibly‑based probability that evidence of the drug offences would be found in Suite 1526‑933 Hornby or Suite 3501‑1283 Howe; s.8 Charter breaches found for both applicants.

Orders

  • Search warrants for Suite 1526‑933 Hornby and Suite 3501‑1283 Howe declared invalid on facial review
  • Findings that Quintin Jerome Anthony and Jordan Gregory Trembley suffered breaches of their s.8 Charter rights