Comment un juge réviseur doit se diriger dans l'appréciation d'une requête attaquant la validité du mandat

R. v. James, 2019 ONCA 288

Lien vers la décision

[19] I extract the following principles from Watt J.A.'s decision in R. v. Sadikov, [2014] O.J. No. 376, 2014 ONCA 72, 305 C.C.C. (3d) 421, at paras. 83-84 and 89:

(1)   Warrant review begins from a premise of presumed validity. The onus of establishing invalidity falls on the person who asserts it.

(2)   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.

(3)   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. Was there reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed on the basis of which the warrant could have issued? [page329]

(4)   An appellate court owes deference to the findings of the reviewing judge in his or her assessment of the record. Absent an error of law, a misapprehension of evidence, or a failure to consider relevant evidence, an appellate court should decline to interfere with the reviewing judge's decision.