R. v. Dewolfe

R. v. Dewolfe

Objectively assessed the redacted ITO failed to provide sufficient grounds to form the requisite belief to authorize the search, thereby breaching s.8; notwithstanding the breach, evidence seized was admissible under s.24(2) because police acted in good faith, there was no state misconduct, and society's interest in the reliable evidence outweighed the privacy infringement.

Citation
2011 NSPC 1
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Leo Arthur Dewolfe
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Charter Voir Dire / Decision on Voir Dire (charter S.8 and S.24(2))
Outcome
Search was unreasonable and breached s.8; evidence seized in the search admitted pursuant to s.24(2) of the Charter.
Legal Topics
Search Warrant, Confidential Informant, Exclusion of Evidence, Reasonable Grounds, S.8 Charter, S.24(2) Charter, Electricity Theft, Grow Operation
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter (canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) Search and Seizure Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Evidence Search Warrant Confidential Informant Exclusion of Evidence +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Leo Arthur Dewolfe

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Charter Voir Dire / Decision on Voir Dire (charter S.8 and S.24(2))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the redacted Information to Obtain provided reasonable grounds to issue the CDSA search warrant
  2. 2 Whether the search violated s.8 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether evidence seized should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

Objectively assessed the redacted ITO failed to provide sufficient grounds to form the requisite belief to authorize the search, thereby breaching s.8; notwithstanding the breach, evidence seized was admissible under s.24(2) because police acted in good faith, there was no state misconduct, and society's interest in the reliable evidence outweighed the privacy infringement.

Court Disposition

Search was unreasonable and breached s.8; evidence seized in the search admitted pursuant to s.24(2) of the Charter.

Orders

  • Evidence seized in the course of the March 4, 2009 search is admissible and not excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter