Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Criminal law (Non-Charter) - Seizure - Search warrant - Whether the trial judge erred in the application of the test for reasonable and probable grounds in determining the validity of a search warrant issued for the purpose of entering a private dwelling - Whether the trial judge erred in determining that proof of criminality is not required prior to the issuance of a warrant to enter a private dwelling in the particular factual circumstances of this case.

A constable of the Edmonton City Police received information from an informant, who was a person known to him, to the effect that he/she had been in a certain apartment located in West Edmonton within the preceding seventy-two hours and had observed a large quantity of marijuana being held by the Appellant for resale. The informant identified the Appellant, the address of the apartment, and also indicated that while the Appellant had a roommate, it was only the Appellant who was involved in selling drugs and that he had done so for a period of one year. The informant provided details relating to the interior of the apartment and the Appellant’s motor vehicle. The investigating officer confirmed from independent sources that the Appellant had a roommate at the address provided, and that the Appellant drove a vehicle that matched the informant’s description. The constable prepared an information to obtain a search warrant, in which he set out the information he received and disclosed the extent and result of his investigation. While his sworn statement concluded that: “every piece of information [the informant] has provided has been verified as true and accurate,” the police had not corroborated certain details, such as the fact that marijuana could be found in the apartment. The search warrant was issued and executed. In a locked bedroom within the residence, the police located and seized 180 grams of marijuana, drug paraphernalia and documents in the Appellant’s name. He was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

At trial, the Appellant challenged the validity of the search warrant. The trial judge agreed that the police officer erred in his statement that he had confirmed all of the information received from the informant. The trial judge concluded that even stripped of the misstatement, the remaining information established those details that had been confirmed, which provided a sufficient basis to issue the search warrant. She concluded that it was reasonable to believe that there was marijuana in the apartment. He was convicted of possession of marijuana. The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Martin J.A., dissenting, concluded that the information provided to support the search warrant was inadequate to justify the search of a home and that the search warrant should not have been issued and would have allowed the appeal.