Hamilton police, relying upon information from a confidential informant, executed a search warrant at an apartment, finding firearms, and arrested the accused. The accused challenged the grounds for authorizing the warrant and the Defence’s theory was that the firearms legally belonged to the accused’s girlfriend. However, the Crown was able to elicit information that the accused did not live at the apartment, and thus, lacked standing to challenge the warrant.
Nevertheless, at trial, the Crown reversed their position, arguing instead the apartment did belong to the accused, and the firearms were his possessions—ultimately leading to the accused’s conviction.
On appeal, Andrew was successfully able to overturn these convictions by relying upon the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Jones, where the Court held that an accused is entitled to rely upon the Crown’s theory to establish facts in challenging a search warrant.