Canada Case Law

R. v. Murphy

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal and refused the motion for fresh evidence because the trial judge did not misapprehend evidence, made legally sound circumstantial inferences, the guilty verdicts were reasonable and supported by the evidence (including direct observation of drugs falling from the appellant and supporting trafficking indicators), and trial counsel's conduct fell within reasonable professional judgment with no demonstrated prejudice; the innocence-at-stake threshold to pierce informer privilege was not met.

Source excerpt

• Misapprehension of evidence
• Circumstantial evidence
• Unreasonable verdict
• Possession for the purpose of trafficking
• Possession of stolen property
• Innocence at stake / informer privilege

Read case analysis

R. v. Perkins

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed from convictions after warrants were upheld; the Court found the unredacted informant material, with corroboration, met the reasonable grounds standard.

• Search warrants
• Production order
• Tracking warrant
• Garofoli procedure (step six)
• Reasonable grounds to believe
• Informant reliability and identification

Read case analysis

R. v. Perkins

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court upheld a general warrant for a storage locker after a Garofoli review found sufficient reasonable grounds linking the accused to drug trafficking.

• General warrant (s.487.01 criminal code)
• Garofoli step 6 procedure
• Reasonable grounds for search
• Production orders
• Informant reliability
• Storage locker searches

Read case analysis

R. v. Robertson

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed an application for in camera review of unredacted informant materials, holding the defence had not met the relevance threshold and that informant privilege barred disclosure.

• Search warrant challenge
• Garofoli hearing
• Disclosure (stinchcombe)
• Informant privilege
• Ito accuracy
• S.24(2) exclusion analysis

Read case analysis

R. v. Edwardsen

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a defence application to cross-examine two sub-affiants after the affiant had already been crossed. The proposed questioning was found speculative and risky to informant privilege.

• Cross-examination of affiant and sub-affiants
• Warrant validity
• Disclosure obligations (full, fair and frank)
• Credibility of informant
• Risk of informant identification
• Cross-examination-of-affiant

Read case analysis

R. v. Edwardsen

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court granted limited Garofoli cross-examination of the affiant on specified discrepancies and omissions, while refusing other proposed lines of questioning, subject to informer privilege.

• Garofoli cross-examination
• Informer privilege
• Search warrant validity
• Full, fair and frank disclosure
• Corroboration of informant intelligence
• Garofoli-cross-examination

Read case analysis

R. v. Pedersen

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held that the Crown could rely on confidential source information to support reasonable and probable grounds, while limiting questioning that could reveal the informant’s identity.

• Reasonable and probable grounds
• Warrantless search
• Confidential informant
• Informant privilege
• Corroboration
• Limits on cross-examination

Read case analysis