R. v. MacDonald

R. v. MacDonald

After amplification and excision of inaccurate portions of the ITO, the remaining material relied on a single informant with no proven reliability, provided scant detail and lacked meaningful corroboration; therefore the ITO failed to establish the credibly-based probability required to authorize a search of the residence, the search violated s.8 of the Charter, and on balance under s.24(2) the administration of justice requires exclusion of the seized evidence.

Citation
2014 NSSC 218
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Michael Victor MacDonald
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Charges / Charter Voir Dire / Pre Trial Application on S.8 and S.24(2)
Outcome
Search warrant invalid for sufficiency purposes; search violated s.8; seized evidence excluded under s.24(2)
Legal Topics
Section 8 Charter Unreasonable Search, Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Search Warrant Sufficiency, Informant Reliability and Corroboration, Amplification Doctrine, Hard Entry
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Search and Seizure Section 8 Charter Unreasonable Search Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Search Warrant Sufficiency Informant Reliability and Corroboration +2 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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Michael Victor MacDonald

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Charges / Charter Voir Dire / Pre Trial Application on S.8 and S.24(2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Information to Obtain (ITO) provided reasonable and probable grounds to issue the search warrant
  2. 2 Whether the search of 11 Trenholme St. violated s.8 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether the evidence seized should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

After amplification and excision of inaccurate portions of the ITO, the remaining material relied on a single informant with no proven reliability, provided scant detail and lacked meaningful corroboration; therefore the ITO failed to establish the credibly-based probability required to authorize a search of the residence, the search violated s.8 of the Charter, and on balance under s.24(2) the administration of justice requires exclusion of the seized evidence.

Court Disposition

Search warrant invalid for sufficiency purposes; search violated s.8; seized evidence excluded under s.24(2)

Orders

  • Evidence seized pursuant to the search of 11 Trenholme St. is excluded under s.24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms