R. v. Fan (W.X.) et al., [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 445 (SC)

JudgeB. Brown, J.
CourtSupreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
Case DateMarch 15, 2013
JurisdictionBritish Columbia
Citations[2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 445 (SC);[2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 445;2013 BCSC 445
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
2 practice notes
  • R. v. Fan (W.X.) et al., [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1406
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • August 2, 2013
    ...to criminal activity. [35] Further, on the property sat the Outbuilding, which was described as a "barn" by the informant: R. v. Fan , 2013 BCSC 445 at para. 7. It was not a residential building that might house residents. And it did not appear to house more than one business or industry wh......
  • R. v. Magee (D.F.), [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 384
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • March 10, 2014
    ...does not meet the test for admissible opinion evidence, as pointed out in R. v. Snider, 2012 BCSC 1906, at para. 15, and in R. v. Fan, 2013 BCSC 445, at para. 66, an ITO will not be set aside simply because the affiant makes conclusive statements rather than leaving it to the JJP to draw hi......
2 cases
  • R. v. Fan (W.X.) et al., [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1406
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • August 2, 2013
    ...to criminal activity. [35] Further, on the property sat the Outbuilding, which was described as a "barn" by the informant: R. v. Fan , 2013 BCSC 445 at para. 7. It was not a residential building that might house residents. And it did not appear to house more than one business or industry wh......
  • R. v. Magee (D.F.), [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 384
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • March 10, 2014
    ...does not meet the test for admissible opinion evidence, as pointed out in R. v. Snider, 2012 BCSC 1906, at para. 15, and in R. v. Fan, 2013 BCSC 445, at para. 66, an ITO will not be set aside simply because the affiant makes conclusive statements rather than leaving it to the JJP to draw hi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT