Garofoli Review

• Author: David Schermbrucker/Randy Schwartz/Mabel Lai/Nader Hasan
• Pages: 575-657



Garofoli Review

16

I. Overview ................................................... 

II. Basic Principles .............................................. 

III. Standing .................................................... 

IV. The Vukelich Motion .......................................... 

V. Presumption of Warrant Validity ................................. 

VI. Standard of Review ........................................... 

VII. Facial Versus Sub-Facial Challenge ............................... 

VIII. The Duty of Full, Frank, and Fair Disclosure ........................ 

IX. Cross-Examination of the Aant ................................ 

X. Cross-Examination of a Sub-Aant .............................. 

XI. Cross-Examination of the Aant on Charter Section() Issues ...... 

XII. Cross-Examination of the Aant at the Preliminary Inquiry (the Dawson

Application) ................................................. 

XIII. May the Defence Tender Evidence on the Garofoli Motion? ........... 

XIV. The Eect of Errors in the ITO .................................. 

XV. Excision, Amplication, and Addition ............................. 

A. Excision .............................................. 

B. Amplication .......................................... 

C. Addition .............................................. 

XVI. Gaining Access to the ITO ..................................... 

A. Opening the Sealed Packet ............................... 

B. The Redacted ITO: The Six Steps in Garofoli ................. 

C. Garofoli Step ......................................... 

D. Garofoli Step, Part A ................................... 

E. Sidenote: The Nature of “Judicial Summaries” of the Redactions

in the ITO ............................................. 

© [2021] Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.

Search and Seizure

F. Garofoli Step, Part B ................................... 

G. Garofoli Step ......................................... 

H. Garofoli Step ......................................... 

I. Garofoli Step ......................................... 

J. Garofoli Steps  to  Subsumed in Step ................... 

K. Garofoli Step ......................................... 

L. Considerations for the Defence ............................ 

M. Does the Crown Have a Right to Invoke Step? .............. 

N. Amicus on Step ....................................... 

O. Can the Crown Avoid Judicial Scrutiny of the Redactions to

the ITO? .............................................. 

XVII. Garofoli Review: Condential Informers ........................... 

A. Compelling ............................................ 

B. Credible .............................................. 

C. Corroborated .......................................... 

XVIII. Severance ................................................... 

XIX. Procedure: Pre-Trial Motion Versus Certiorari ...................... 

XX. The Residual Discretion to Quash a Warrant ....................... 

XXI. Conclusion .................................................. 

I. Overview

A challenge to a search warrant usually takes the form of a pre-trial Charter motion

alleging that the warrant was improperly issued because the contents of the Informa-

tion to Obtain (ITO)1 could not justify its issuance. If the challenge is successful, the

warrant is quashed and the search is treated as warrantless, rendering it presump-

tively unreasonable under section 8 of the Charter. The defence usually launches the

motion with a view to obtaining an order excluding evidence under section 24(2) of

the Charter. The warrant challenge is known as a “Garofoli review” or a “Garofoli

motion or application.” Although the judgment in R v Garofoli 2 was about the validity

of a wiretap authorization, the principles and procedures expressed therein apply

equally to a challenge of any judicial authorization, warrant, or order for a search or

seizure.

A Garofoli review is a Charter challenge. Two preliminary issues may therefore

arise. First, Crown counsel may argue that the claimant lacks standing. Second,

Crown counsel may object to the Garofoli review going ahead at all on the ground that

1 In the case of a wiretap application, this document is usually referred to as the “supporting

adavit.” They are the same thing: a written statement under oath setting out the grounds in

support of the authorization, warrant, or order.

2 [1990] 2 SCR 1421, 1990 CanLII 52.

© [2021] Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.

Chapter  Garofoli Review 

the motion as framed by the defence has no hope of success—the so-called “Vukelich

motion.”3

A Garofoli review is invariably heard by a judge of the trial court (reviewing judge)

presiding over a pre-trial Charter motion. But defence counsel will lay the ground-

work for a Garofoli review well before the trial. Attention to Stinchcombe disclosure

of all information that is not clearly irrelevant to the defence figures here; so, too,

does attention to appropriate requests for third-party records—so-called “O’Connor

material.”4 Crown counsel should be alive to the possible need to make a “bridging

inquiry” pursuant to R v McNeil,5 which obliges the Crown to ask a non-police agency

for access to potentially relevant evidence pertaining to the Garofoli review—for ex-

ample, information in the hands of the agency upon which the police have relied in

forming grounds to obtain their warrant. At the preliminary inquiry, defence counsel

will often want to explore evidence relevant to a future Garofoli review, such as asking

for leave to cross-examine the aant. When the case arrives at the pre-trial Garofoli

motion, some of these issues will remain unresolved, and the defence may need to

bring motions for additional disclosure.

The centrepiece of the record on a Garofoli review is the ITO that was presented to

the issuing judge in support of the application for the authorization, warrant, or order.

Garofoli sets out a six-step process for unsealing, disclosing, and reviewing the ITO.

The process for unsealing, redacting, and disclosing an ITO is largely codified—see

sections 187 and 487.3 of the Criminal Code—but Garofoli is still the key judgment.

The ITO may be subject to redactions by Crown counsel in order to protect sensi-

tive information, such as the identity of a confidential informer (CI). Defence and

Crown counsel may disagree about the nature and extent of those redactions, and that

disagreement may play out before the reviewing judge. Defence counsel may seek to

cross-examine the aant. The ITO may be subject to “excision” in order to remove

objectionable information, such as information resulting from a Charter-infringing

investigative step or inaccurate information, “amplification” in order to correct minor

mistakes, or “addition” in order to add information the aant should have included,

usually under the rubric of full, frank, and fair disclosure.

At the end of the Garofoli review, the reviewing judge will decide whether su-

cient credible and reliable information remains on the basis of which the issuing judge

could have granted the warrant.

This chapter addresses these issues and the leading cases through a practical lens.

3 Infra note 36.

4 R v Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326, 1991 CanLII 45; R v O’Connor, [1995] 4 SCR 411, 1995

CanLII 51.

5 2009 SCC 3 at paras 48-51.

© [2021] Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.