Case information

Criminal law — Charter of Rights — Protection against unreasonable search — Sufficiency of grounds in support of information to obtain search warrant — Right to retain and instruct counsel without delay — Suspension of right to counsel — Exclusion of evidence — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe that items sought in search warrant would be in applicant’s home — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that infringements of applicant’s right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure and right to retain and instruct counsel without delay did not lead to exclusion of evidence obtained as result of those infringements — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 8, 10(b), 11(d) and 24(2).

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.

Following the receipt of information from a registered informant and seven days of surveillance, the police had reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the applicant, Mr. Simon, was trafficking in heroin. They obtained warrants to search the applicant’s vehicle and residence as well as those of another individual of interest in the investigation. On March 29, 2018, the police executed the warrants. They arrested the applicant first behind the wheel of his car and suspended his right to counsel until the other individual was arrested. The suspension lasted just over four hours. During that time, the applicant was not questioned.

When the applicant, his vehicle and his residence were searched, the police seized a total of 205.8 grams of heroin, two cell phones, $109,876 in cash, small transparent blue bags, bagging equipment and accounting documents. The applicant was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and possession of things obtained by the commission of an offence. At trial, he sought to have the evidence excluded under the Charter, alleging that the grounds set out in the information in support of the warrant to search his residence were insufficient and that his right to counsel had been infringed. The Court of Québec dismissed the motions; the evidence adduced in connection with the motions was entered on the merits and the applicant was convicted of the offences charged. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.