R. v. Maton

R. v. Maton

The affidavit contained deliberate omissions and wording intended to mislead the justice of the peace about material facts (the nature of the dwelling and the significance of observed items); that lack of candour was so subversive of the prior authorization process that the warrant was quashed to protect the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2005 BCSC 330
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Michael Ryan Maton
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire — Review of Search Warrant
Outcome
Application granted; search warrant quashed; evidence excluded.
Legal Topics
Section 8 Charter, Section 24(2) Charter, Search Warrant Review, Informant Reliability, Prior Authorization Candour, Plain Smell Doctrine, Exclusion of Evidence
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Search and Seizure Section 8 Charter Section 24(2) Charter Search Warrant Review Informant Reliability +3 more

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 6 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Michael Ryan Maton

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire — Review of Search Warrant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the information in support of the search warrant was deliberately misleading and material such that the warrant must be quashed
  2. 2 Whether, if the warrant is invalid, the evidence seized should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether the odour of marijuana and limited surveillance corroboration provided sufficient reliable information to support issuance of the warrant

Ratio Decidendi

The affidavit contained deliberate omissions and wording intended to mislead the justice of the peace about material facts (the nature of the dwelling and the significance of observed items); that lack of candour was so subversive of the prior authorization process that the warrant was quashed to protect the integrity of judicial authorization. Although the seized items were non-conscriptive, the seriousness of the Charter breach and the expected effect on the administration of justice required exclusion of the marijuana evidence under s.24(2).

Court Disposition

Application granted; search warrant quashed; evidence excluded.

Orders

  • Search warrant quashed.
  • Evidence obtained as a result of the execution of the invalid warrant is excluded from trial.