R. v. Moulton, 2020 ONCJ 96

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: R. v. Moulton , 2020 ONCJ 96 DATE: 2020 02 14 COURT FILE No.: Brampton 3111 998 19 39570 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN — AND — TROY MOULTON Before Justice G.P. Renwick Heard on 12 February 2020 Revised Judicial

Summary released on 14 February 2020 J. Campitelli (P.P.S.C.) and T. Powell (A.G.O.)................... counsel for the Prosecution R. Rusonik.......................................................... counsel for the Defendant Troy Moulton JUDICIAL

SUMMARY OF REDACTED INFORMATION – GAROFOLI STEPS 3 AND 4 RENWICK J.: [ 1 ] There are at least four interests at stake in this exercise: i. The Defendant’s right to receive full disclosure of the investigation that has led to a prosecution against him; ii. The right to make full answer and defence in respect of the charges the Defendant faces; iii. The prosecution’s obligation to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt; and iv. The protection of the identity of a confidential informant (“CI”). [ 2 ] In this judicial

summary, I have taken into account the written and oral summaries of the redacted information provided by the prosecution in open court on 12 February 2020, the submissions made by the prosecution and defence counsel, the reasons given for the redactions made, and my understanding of the law.

In completing this exercise, foremost in my mind is the need to produce summaries of redacted information which can be useful to the Defendant to challenge the decision of the issuing justice to grant a search warrant of a private residence, while protecting the identity of a CI. [ 3 ] For the purposes of the anticipated Garofoli step 6 application to justify the granting of a search warrant with redactions made to protect a confidential informant, I have determined that it is necessary to maintain the following redactions made to Appendix D of the Information to Obtain (“ITO”) of Detective Constable Erik Grant, in order to protect the identity of the CI whose information is relied upon by the affiant. [ 4 ] Below, I have attempted to recreate the entire Appendix D to the ITO with the redactions in place and the judicial summaries of the edited information noted.

I will use square brackets ([ ]) to denote the start and end of a redaction, with the judicial

summary in italics in between. Appendix D

History, Reliability and Information Provided by CI#1 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN THIS APPENDIX IS NOT TO BE DISCLOSED On August 6 th , 2019, I spoke with Peel Regional Police officer, Detective Constable Lorette, and learned the following: Information of the Confidential Informant #1 – CI #1 a. His/her motivation [ nature of consideration disclosed]. b. He/she has been involved in the criminal sub culture for a lengthy period of time and as such has a strong knowledge of street drugs and firearms. c.

He/she fully understands that no consideration will be granted if the information provided is not completely accurate and reliable. d. CI#1 is registered with the Peel Regional Police Service. e. [ Within 90 days of the execution of the search warrant ] CI#1 provided information regarding a male with a name of “******Troy MOULTON******,” who is in possession of a **********firearm(s)**********. [1] f. CI#1 recently met up with [ Name/Nickname – AB ] who he/she also knows as [ Name/Nickname – CD ]. [ AB/CD ] is known to Detective Constable Lorette #3386 as “Troy MOULTON” (1988.02.24).

The source was shown a picture of Troy MOULTON and confirmed the picture to be the person they know as [ Name/Nickname – AB/CD ]. g. [ Name/Nickname – AB/CD ] is in possession of a [ firearm ]. CI#1 has [ further detail provided including specifics of when firearm was observed in his personal possession (the exact date the firearm was observed cannot be stated; however, it can be stated it was observed in AB/CD’s possession within 90 days of the execution of the search warrant), and where the firearm was observed.

It can be stated that police checks were able to corroborate an aspect of the information provided by the CI articulated in this paragraph; however, the crown is not able to state the exact nature of the information corroborated. The crown can confirm that surveillance was not used to corroborate this. ] h. [ Name/Nickname – AB/CD ] was in possession of the firearm [ further detail provided regarding CI’s observation in this regard. (Detective Constable Lorette #3386 advised that – further detail provided used to qualify the source’s observation).

Detective Constable Lorette advised he confirmed another aspect of the informant’s information. CI#1 knows the firearm is real. ] i. [ Name/Nickname – AB/CD ] is [ further information provided by the CI about the criminal history of the male identified as Troy Moulton, which the police were able to corroborate through their investigation as accurate. It can be stated that Peel Regional Police checks corroborated an aspect of the information provided; however, the crown is not able to state the exact nature of the information corroborated.

Peel Regional Police checked two sources of information, to confirm one aspect or “an aspect” of the informant’s information. ] Confidential Informant #1 Proven Reliable I believe the CI’s information regarding this investigation has been proven reliable based on the totality of the circumstances, including the compelling nature of the information provided. Past information with proven results [ CI#1 has provided information on multiple occasions that has been proven reliable and has led to multiple Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Criminal Code seizures.

CI#1 has provided information which has been used to obtain more than 2 search warrants [2] ( Criminal Code and Controlled Drug and Substances Act). As a result of the search warrants, a total of more than 2 firearms have been seized [3] as well as controlled substances. ] No past examples of false or exaggerated information To date investigators are unaware of an instance which CI#1 provided false or exaggerated information. Motivation CI readily admits that his/her motivation is for [ nature of motivation/consideration ].

Past Criminal association and or activity [ Involvement in the criminal justice system, if applicable; crown is not able to disclose whether or not the CI has a criminal record, however, it can be stated that if the CI has a criminal record, it was attached. CI’s connection to the criminal subculture is outlined. CI has never been convicted of perjury or obstruct police/obstruct justice. [4] ] Released: 12 February 2020 [5] Justice G. Paul Renwick