R. c. Brisson, 2023 QCCS 1973
[31] Toute autorisation judiciaire bénéficie d’une présomption de validité, et il appartient aux accusés d’en établir l’invalidité, que ce soit en regard de la validité apparente ou sous-apparente, en établissant que l’autorisation judiciaire n’aurait pas dû être accordée. Les accusés ont également le fardeau de démontrer, selon la balance des probabilités, la violation de leurs droits constitutionnels.
[32] Quant aux principes applicables à la révision d’une autorisation judiciaire, le Tribunal se réfère aux résumés qu’en fait l’honorable juge David Watt dans les deux arrêts suivants de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario.
[42] A trial judge who has to determine whether a search was authorized by law must decide whether the conditions precedent to the search authority on which reliance is placed have been satisfied. To do this, the trial judge conducts a hearing – a Garofoli application. At that hearing, the judge examines the material before the authorizing judge or justice, material which may differ from the original because portions have been redacted, for example, to protect confidential informer privilege. Evidence at the Garofoli hearing may persuade the trial judge that parts of the original material should be excised or amplified. In the end, the record becomes fixed for review purposes.
[43] What the trial judge is required to decide on the Garofoli application is whether, based on the record before the authorizing judge or justice, as amplified on the Garofoli review, the authorizing judge could have granted the enabling order: Garofoli, at p. 1452. The judge must decide whether, after excision and amplification, there was reliable evidence which might reasonably be believed on the basis of which the search authority could have been issued: Araujo, at paras. 51, 54; R. v. Campbell, 2011 SCC 32, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 549, at para. 14; R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253, at para. 40. The onus of establishing that the search authority was improvidently granted rests upon the accused: Campbell, at para. 14; Morelli, at para. 131; Quebec (Attorney General) v. Laroche, 2002 CSC 72 (CanLII), 2022 SCC 72, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 708, at para. 68.
[44] Prior to Garofoli, fraud, non-disclosure, misleading evidence and new evidence were prerequisites to review of the enabling order: Garofoli, at p. 1452. But thereafter, the “sole impact” of the same things was to determine whether there remained any basis for the decision of the authorizing judge or justice: Garofoli, at p. 1452. See also Araujo, at para. 51; Bisson, at p. 1098.
[45] The assessment required by Garofoli is contextual. What is involved is an analysis to determine whether there remains sufficient reliable information upon which the search authority could be grounded. This approach appropriately balances the need for judicial finality and the need to protect systems of pre‑authorization: Araujo, at para. 54. In this analysis, facts originally omitted are also considered: Morelli, at para. 60.
[46] Essential features of the Garofoli application are excision and amplification. Erroneous information is excised from the ITO and disregarded in determining whether the essential evidentiary predicate remains: Araujo, at para. 58; Campbell, at para. 14; Morelli, at para. 41. But errors made in good faith may be corrected by amplification through the introduction of evidence that was available when the ITO was prepared: Morelli, at paras. 41-43.
[47] A final point concerns the standard against which alleged errors or omissions in the ITO are tested. The affiant’s assertions are tested against the affiant’s reasonable belief at the time the ITO was composed, not the ultimate truth of the facts stated: World Bank Group v. Wallace, 2016 SCC 15, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 207, at para. 122.
The Standard for Warrant Review
[83] Warrant review begins from a premise of presumed validity: Wilson, at para. 63; and R. v. Campbell, 2010 ONCA 588, 261 C.C.C. (3d) 1, at para. 45, aff’d 2011 SCC 32, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 549. It follows from this presumption of validity that the onus of demonstrating invalidity falls on the party who asserts it, in this case, Sadikov.
[84] The scope of warrant review is narrow. The review is not a de novo hearing of the ex parte application. The reviewing judge does not substitute his or her view for that of the issuing judge: Garofoli, at p. 1452; R. v. Ebanks, 2009 ONCA 851, 97 O.R. (3d) 721, at para. 20, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2010] 1 S.C.R. ix; and R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253, at para. 40. The standard is whether there is sufficient credible and reliable evidence to permit a justice to find reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and that evidence of that offence would be found at the specified time and place of search: Morelli, at para. 40. Said in another way, the test is whether there was reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed on the basis of which the warrant could – not would – have issued: Morelli, at para. 40; Araujo, at para. 54; and Garofoli, at p. 1452.
[85] The reviewing court does not undertake its review solely on the basis of the ITO that was before the issuing judge. The reviewing court must exclude erroneous information included in the original ITO, but may also consider, within limits, additional evidence adduced on the voir dire to correct minor errors in the ITO. Amplification evidence corrects good faith errors of the police in preparing the ITO, but does not extend to deliberate attempts to mislead the authorizing judge: Morelli, at para. 41; and Araujo, at para. 58. Evidence relied upon to amplify the record must be evidence available to investigators at the time the ITO was sworn, not information acquired later: Morelli, at para. 43.
[86] Warrant review is an integral part – a first step – in an inquiry into admissibility of evidence proposed for reception. It is not a trial and must not take on the trappings of a trial in which the truth of the allegations contained in the indictment is explored: Ebanks, at para. 21. In establishing the record for the purposes of review, what is to be excised from the ITO is information that is erroneous, not information that is correct, or information that contradicts other information, or information with which the reviewing judge does not agree: Ebanks, at para. 21.
[87] Warrant review requires a contextual analysis. Inaccuracies in the ITO, on their own, are not a sufficient basis on which to ground a finding of bad faith or an intent to mislead, much less to provide a basis on which to set aside the warrant: Araujo, at para. 54. The existence of fraud, non-disclosure, misleading evidence, and new evidence are all relevant but are neither a prerequisite to, nor dispositive of, the review: Garofoli, at p. 1452; and Ebanks, at para. 20.
[88] It is no part of the reviewing judge’s mandate to determine whether she would issue the warrant on the basis of the amplified record. Nor is it the reviewing judge’s role to draw inferences, or to prefer one inference over another. The inquiry begins and ends with an assessment of whether the amplified record contains reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed on the basis of which the warrant could have issued: Morelli, at para. 40.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire