R. v. Patterson

R. v. Patterson

The ITO was materially inadequate because it relied on conclusory single‑source assertions without revealing or establishing the informant's basis of knowledge or credibility; therefore the search violated s.8 and, after balancing Grant factors (seriousness of state conduct, impact on privacy, societal interest), the court excluded the seized evidence under s.24(2).

Citation
2014 NSPC 101
Parties
Crown/prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused/defendant: Stephen Mitchell Patterson
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act S.5(2) (possession for Purpose of Trafficking) / Pre Trial Application/decision on Constitutionality of Warranted Search and S.24(2) Remedy at Trial
Outcome
Court found a s.8 Charter breach and excluded the evidence seized under the warrant pursuant to s.24(2) of the Charter.
Legal Topics
Section 8 Charter (unreasonable Search and Seizure), Section 24(2) Charter (exclusion of Evidence), Information to Obtain (ito) Sufficiency, Reliability of Confidential Informants, Judicial Review of Search Warrants
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Evidence Search and Seizure Section 8 Charter (unreasonable Search and Seizure) Section 24(2) Charter (exclusion of Evidence) Information to Obtain (ito) Sufficiency Reliability of Confidential Informants +1 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/prosecution

Stephen Mitchell Patterson

Accused/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act S.5(2) (possession for Purpose of Trafficking) / Pre Trial Application/decision on Constitutionality of Warranted Search and S.24(2) Remedy at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ITO provided reasonable and probable grounds for issuance of the search warrant
  2. 2 Whether the search pursuant to that warrant violated s.8 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether the evidence seized should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

The ITO was materially inadequate because it relied on conclusory single‑source assertions without revealing or establishing the informant's basis of knowledge or credibility; therefore the search violated s.8 and, after balancing Grant factors (seriousness of state conduct, impact on privacy, societal interest), the court excluded the seized evidence under s.24(2).

Court Disposition

Court found a s.8 Charter breach and excluded the evidence seized under the warrant pursuant to s.24(2) of the Charter.

Orders

  • Evidence seized under the warrant issued 12 October 2013 is excluded under s.24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.