Stuart O'Connell Criminal Law Blog

Although the defence cannot challenge the validity of a search warrant at the preliminary inquiry, it can seek to cross-examine the affiant of the affidavit in support of the application for the search warrant under the authority of R. v. Dawson (1998) , 1998 CanLII 1010 (ON CA).  The defence is not obligated to accept cross-examination of the affiant at the preliminary inquiry as a substitute for cross-examination at trial.  When the defence shows a reasonable likelihood that cross-examination of the affiant on the s. 8 application at trial will generate evidence tending to discredit the existence of one or more of the grounds for the issuance of the warrant, the defence is entitled to conduct that cross-examination as part of the s. 8 application at trial regardless of whether that cross-examination will add to the cross-examination conducted at the preliminary inquiry.  R. v. Shivrattan , 2017 ONCA 23 (CanLII) at paras. 53,54 (leave to appeal to the SCC refused, 20

It is not surprising that the consequences of crime fall hardest on its victims.   While it is sometimes difficult to evaluate the extent of the effects of crime, it has been estimated that 67% of the financial burdens resulting from crime--including replacing property and possessions, lost wages, health costs, time off work, funeral costs, and various other out-of-pocket expenses—are borne by the victims of crime. This leads to an important societal question: should we leave victims to assume the greater part of those financial losses which crime has occasioned? Since the late twentieth century, the answer to that question in both the international and domestic spheres has been, increasingly, no. See for instance, The Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power , adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on 29 November 1985. A primary means by which government has sought to ameliorate the financial burden of crime on those who were