EMAIL 604 687 7078

R. v. V. and C., 2016 BCSC 2546 – Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten

Cases of Note / 22.12.2016

[85]  Following my consideration of the ITO (Information to Obtain Search Warrant) as a whole, as amplified on review, I am not satisfied there was reliable evidence before the authorizing justice, that might reasonably be believed, on the basis of which this warrant could have issued.

[87] …police came out of the gate over-estimating, and perhaps misconstruing, the strength and meaning of the material received from the medical clinic; drew inferences that were not objectively warranted in respect of J.V.’s Licence; and then allowed those inferences to shape what flowed thereafter…

[88]  The ITO (Information to Obtain Search Warrant) also suffers from less than careful drafting, which resulted in factual inaccuracies and inconsistencies within the body of the ITO itself and weakened its overall impact…

[95]  For the reasons provided, I have concluded that the warrant obtained… could not properly have issued because the ITO, as amplified on review, did not meet the test for reasonable grounds as required by s. 11(1) of the CDSA.  Accordingly, the warrant must be set aside.  The search… is therefore to be treated as a warrantless search and is presumptively unreasonable in violation of s. 8 of the Charter.