Q.B. A.D. 1987 No. CS 1159 J.C. R. IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN JUDICIAL CENTRE OF REGINA BETWEEN: ROGER ALLEN LERAT and SHANNON JOY VALLEY APPLICANTS and JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, ELIZABETH V. PEARCE RESPONDENT Wade E. McBride for the applicants Lorna Dyck for the respondent JUDGMENT MAURICE J. March 17, 1987 The respondent, a justice of the peace, issued a search warrant to search a dwelling house for weapons allegedly used in an attempted armed robbery. The applicants seek an order quashing the warrant on the grounds: ... that the said Search Warrant was unlawfully and invalidly issued in excess of the jurisdiction of the Respondent for the following reasons: (1) The INFORMATION sworn in support of the application for the said Search Warrant failed to disclose the existence of reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the items sought to be seized would be found at the location which was to be the subject of the search; more particularly, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the said Information was deficient in the following respects: (a) The sole ground upon which the Information is based is hearsay information from confidential source and no details are provided in support of the informant's opinion or conclusion that such information is reliable. Furthermore the informant fails to pledge on oath as to his belief in the accuracy of the source of confidential information, and therefore, no reliance could have been placed thereon by the Respondent in determining whether reasonable and probable grounds existed for the issuance of the Warrant. The search warrant was issued pursuant to the provisions of s. 443 of the Criminal Code. That section provides in part as follows: 443(1) justice who is satisfied by information upon oath in Form 1, that there is reasonable ground to believe that there is in building, receptacle or place ... (b) anything that there is reasonable ground to believe will afford evidence with respect to the commission of an offence against this Act, or ... may at any time issue warrant under his hand authorizing person named therein or peace officer to search the building, receptacle or place for any such thing, and to seize and carry it before the justice who issued the warrant or some other justice for the same territorial division to be dealt with by him according to law. The function of judge asked to quash search warrant on the basis that s. 443 has not been complied with is set forth in Re Times Square Book Store and The Queen (1985), 1985 CanLII 170 (ON CA), 21 C.C.C. (3d) 503 (Ont. C.A.) at p. 514: ... [I]t must be remembered that the role of the motions court judge hearing an application to quash search warrant is limited. He may not substitute his opinion as to the sufficiency of the evidence for that of the justice of the peace. Rather, the motions court judge must do no more than determine two issues. Firstly, whether or not there is evidence upon which justice of the peace, acting judicially, could determine that search warrant should be issued. To be acting judicially the justice of the peace "must be satisfied on reasonable grounds; that is, the grounds of belief set out in the information must be such as would satisfy reasonable man. If there are not such grounds shown the justice cannot be taken to have been satisfied on reasonable grounds." (Re Bell Telephone Co. of Can. Ltd. (1947), 1947 CanLII 374 (ON SC), 89 C.C.C. 196 at 198 [Ont. H.C.].) II The grounds of belief of the informant, peace officer, in support of his belief that the weapons would be found in the dwelling house are stated to be: Reliable and confidential information was received that the weapons used in the attempted Armed Robbery are being kept in the 3rd floor Suite of 1903 St. John Street, Regina, Saskatchewan by an unknown person. The applicants claim the peace officer's grounds are not objective reasonable grounds to support the respondent's satisfaction that the weapons would be found in the dwelling house. They submit more particularity was required more information had to be given about the confidential informer and how he obtained the knowledge so that the respondent could satisfy herself as to the reliability of the informer and the accuracy of his information. III As matter of public policy, the Crown is not required to disclose the name of the confidential informer. If the Information discloses too much information about the informer and his means of knowledge, the identity of the informer will become apparent. As result, the Crown has to take refuge in the kind of language employed in this Information. note the type of language used by the peace officer has been accepted, as compliance with the section, in other cases: see Re Lubell and The Queen (1973), 1973 CanLII 1488 (ON SC), 11 C.C.C. (2d) 188 (Ont. H.C.); Re Dodge and The Queen (1985), 1984 CanLII 59 (NL SC), 16 C.C.C. (3d) 385 (Nfl. S.C.). Perhaps more information could have been provided, however, there was information upon which the respondent, acting judicially, could be satisfied that search warrant should issue. Courts should not be too technical when scrutinizing the Information in support of search warrant; substantial compliance with s. 443 is sufficient. Informations are prepared by peace officers who are not trained as legal draftsmen, and they often have to prepare the Informations under time constraints, faced with possibility that evidence will disappear if they do not act quickly to seize it. reasonable latitude must be granted when the wording of the Information is being considered: see Re Time Square Book Store and The Queen, supra, at p. 512 and Re Lubell and The Queen, supra, at p. 190. IV As the respondent acted within her jurisdiction in issuing the search warrant the application is dismissed.
Warrant issued to search a dwelling house for weapons allegedly used in an attempted armed robbery. The affidavit in support referred to an unknown informant. Judge applied the test that the justice of the peace `must be satisfied on reasonable grounds.' Substantial compliance found and warrant upheld.