The court upheld the telewarrant process but set aside search warrants for a 1st Avenue apartment and the accused’s residence because the ITO showed suspicion, not reasonable grounds.
In the particular circumstances of a small 10-unit condominium where the respondent owned and lived in unit 302, the respondent had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas; the police’s three surreptitious entries and hidden observation constituted searches that violated s.8; the evidence obtained thereby formed the basis for the search warrant and was constitutionally tainted; applying Grant the evidence was excluded under s.24(2); the Crown’s appeal is dismissed.
The Court concluded there was a basis for articulable cause to detain the appellant and the trial judge correctly applied the R. v. Grant s.24(2) analysis; therefore the conviction stands.
The court denied a defence application to reopen a wiretap voir dire, finding the material was long in counsel’s possession and irrelevant to the accused before the court.