Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from drug-trafficking convictions, holding the search warrant was properly issued on corroborated confidential-informant evidence.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from firearms convictions, holding the search warrant challenge failed because the ITO and video evidence were not mischaracterized.
Ont. C.A. dismisses an appeal from drug convictions, upholding the trial judge’s s. 24(2) ruling after a serious but unintentional s. 10(b) breach.
The court excluded evidence seized from Mr. Cancela’s residence under s. 24(2), finding the warrant affidavit materially omitted and overstated key facts.
The court set aside a search warrant after finding the confidential informant evidence, anonymous handler, and surveillance corroboration were insufficient on the totality of the record.
Oral ruling on a defence application for leave to cross-examine the affiant on an ITO. Leave was granted in part and denied in part, with informer privilege limits preserved.
The court granted the Crown’s summary dismissal in part, striking a speculative challenge to the existence or status of informants, but let the disclosure request proceed.
The court upheld a drug-search warrant after excising an unsupported reference to corroboration by other police officers and finding the remaining ITO sufficient.
The court held that the identities of Persons D, E and F must remain redacted because disclosure would pose a serious risk to the important public interest in protecting the reputational and dignity interests of legal professionals (their biographical core) and no reasonable alternative would prevent that risk; conversely the identity of Person P (police officer) is peripheral and its disclosure does not meet the Sherman Estate threshold and therefore must be released.
Source excerpt
The ITO, on its face, omitted material information and therefore there was a breach of s.8; however, the breach was at the lower end of seriousness, the police acted in good faith and the evidence was highly reliable and central to the Crown’s case, so under s.24(2) admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the conviction is upheld.
Source excerpt
Explore more
