Trial on various charges including possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking. Facial validity challenge to warrant authorizing search of accused’s residence.

 Held: s 8 breach; evidence excluded under 24(2).

 At most, evidence supported reasonable suspicion that accused was somehow involved in trafficking; no reasonable grounds regarding trafficking activity or evidence at her residence. On 24(2) analysis, Court considered “investigator comments” in ITO that amounted to conclusions without any supporting evidence, or conclusions not based on particularized evidence: “…I did not find factual errors or negligence or evidence of bad faith. The ITO, however, did contain some elements of what might be regarded as at least hyperbole or…emotive (as opposed to evidential) tactics for persuading the issuing justice.” Such elements should be discouraged. Improper rhetorical tactics increased the seriousness of the affiant’s Charter-infringing conduct.

D. Vigen – Defence Counsel