https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2016/2016onca160/2016onca160.html?resultIndex=20R. v. Nero, 2016 ONCA 160 (CanLII)
[45]
Det. Cst. Howe had direct contact with only one of five CIs to whom he made reference in the ITO. Consistent with his obligation not to disclose an informer’s identity, or any information that could reveal his or her identity, Det. Cst. Howe described for each CI whether she or he had a criminal record, including offences of dishonesty, or was facing outstanding charges; any indicia of reliability; and the nature of the contact between the informer and his or her handler. The ITO developed in chronological order contact between various individuals including through use of the cellphones whose records were sought under the order.
[50]
In his ITO, Det. Cst. Titleman included information provided by a single informant. In a separate and undisclosed Appendix, the officer provided greater detail about the information provided and how and the extent to which it had been confirmed by other means. He concluded by explaining why he believed the documents or data he sought would afford evidence of cocaine trafficking by those alleged to be involved.
[58] The respondent sees it differently. The ITOs established a sound and ample evidentiary predicate to nourish the findings necessary to grant the orders.
The core information came from three CIs of proven reliability, and a concerned member of the public without criminal antecedents or any personal benefits in play.
Another CI was an admitted participant in the drug culture of Niagara Region and provided first-hand information about those involved in it. No information provided by any informant was proven incorrect. The interpersonal connections of which they spoke were confirmed by physical surveillance.
It appears Nico Nero was correct. There was a rat. In fact there were several and a member of the community.
