R. v. Mackenzie

canada, canadian, case law, court opinion, canlii, onca, 2026onca620, 2026 onca 620 (canlii), 2026, onca, 620, (canlii), coa-24-cr-1090, 2026, criminal and statutory offences, appeal from acquittal, weapons offences, crown appeal following exclusion of critical evidence, search warrants executed and weapons found in a garage, acquittals entered after s. 24(2) ruling, whether legal error led to setting aside the acquittals, new trial ordered, procedure, garofoli hearing, residual discretion, whether residual discretion can be invoked based solely on negligence, distinction between amplification and residual discretion, requirement of intentional wrongdoing, deliberate non, disclosure, deliberate deception, fraudulent misrepresentation, authorities reviewed, garofoli, araujo, morelli, paryniuk, booth, appeal allowed, new trial ordered, rights and freedoms, canadian charter of rights and freedoms, s. 8 and s. 24(2), exclusion of evidence, whether s. 8 breach could be found where warrants still could have issued after amplification, whether evidence could be excluded based on residual discretion grounded in negligence, binary good faith or bad faith analysis in warrant review, appeal allowed, new trial ordered, procedure, appeals, error of law, appeal from acquittal standard, r. v. graveline, whether trial judge’s legal error might reasonably be thought to have had a material bearing on the acquittals, high burden on crown, concrete reality of the case, exclusion of critical crown evidence as material impact, acquittals set aside, new trial ordered