2025.09.17
This primer identifies the basics of drafting a search warrant under s.487 of the Criminal Code. It presumes that you are investigating the brutal stabbing murder of Waldock on the grounds of Douglas College on September 19, 2025.
Expert affiants re-read the section often when drafting warrants;
beginners should follow their lead. Read it carefully.
A justice who is satisfied by information on oath in Form 1 that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is in a building, receptacle or place
(a) anything on or in respect of which any offence against this Act or any other Act of Parliament has been or is suspected to have been committed,
(b) anything that there are reasonable grounds to believe will afford evidence with respect to the commission of an offence, or will reveal the whereabouts of a person who is believed to have committed an offence, against this Act or any other Act of Parliament,
(c) anything that there are reasonable grounds to believe is intended to be used for the purpose of committing any offence against the person for which a person may be arrested without warrant, or
(c.1) any offence-related property,
may at any time issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer or a public officer who has been appointed or designated to administer or enforce a federal or provincial law and whose duties include the enforcement of this Act or any other Act of Parliament and who is named in the warrant
(d) to search the building, receptacle or place for any such thing and to seize it, and
(e) subject to any other Act of Parliament, to, as soon as practicable, bring the thing seized before, or make a report in respect of it to, a justice in accordance with section 489.1.
These words mean that the applicant for a warrant must give his
or her reasons as if they were testifying in court, or completing
an affidavit. If they knowingly give false information, they
commit the crime of perjury.
At the end of the Criminal Code is a form
for applying for a search warrant. Unless you have a better form
to work with, copy it into a word-processing document. Read it and
start filling in the blanks.
This reflects our legal requirement for giving sworn evidence:
one person gives the evidence, and the other witnesses the first
one swearing or affirming it to be true.
The form contains archaic language and is cumbersomely drafted.
Fortunately, s.849
of the Criminal Code permits you to vary the wording according to
your case.
Police forces tend to use better-drafted forms to explain their
applications for warrants, but the same two people must "speak" in
the document.
An independent decision-maker (usually a justice of the peace or
judge) must decide whether to grant the warrant. Hunter
et al. v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145.
In order to do that, they need to know the available evidence and
information so that they can decide for themselves whether
to grant the application. This means you need to explain what you
know, including any reasons not to grant the warrant. R.
v. Araujo, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992
Because of this requirement, the decision-maker can't rely on
your conclusions or inferences. You need to explain your
conclusions as well as what brought you to those conclusions.
| Evidence / information |
Conclusion This information makes me believe... |
| I read an arrest report written by Cst Jones.
It said that she arrested John Cater on February 29, 2025
for assaulting a barrista in a coffee shop in New
Westminster. When Cst Jones booked Cater in, she
fingerprinted him. I read a report written by Cpl Ridges, a fingerprint examiner. He compared those fingerprints to the fingerprint found on the bloody knife, and found that the right thumb matched. |
... the bloody knife had John Cater's
fingerprint on it. |
| I received an email from Ima Student on
December 19, 2025. In it, she said that she attended classes
taught by John Cater in September and October 2025. She said
that she attended the class in September when Henry Waldock
attended, and made jokes at Cater's expense. The students
laughed at their teacher. She remembered that after class,
Cater appeared angry with Waldock. She heard him swear at
Waldock. After Waldock left, Cater told her that Waldock
"humiliated me in my own classroom", and that he would
"F-ing kill him". A few days later, she learned that someone
stabbed Waldock to death. |
...shortly before the murder, Waldock
attended John Cater's criminal law class, where Waldock
belittled him in front of the students. Cater took it badly,
and threatened to kill Waldock. |
| I interviewed Cater's supervisor on December
12, 2025. He told me that on September 19, 2025, Cater
attended his office. Cater expressed anger at Waldock. Cater
said that he wrote to Waldock demanding that Waldock meet
with him and apologize. |
... Cater sent Waldock emails about Cater's
injured feelings. |
The section requires you to explain why you think the thing you
want "is" in the place you want to search.
That requires you to identify the place, so that the warrant can
authorize you to enter it.
Identify the thing you seek. What is it?
Your application needs to explain why you think a crime occurred.
No crime, no warrant. Look up the crime in the Criminal Code (or
other Act), to make sure that what you know about qualifies as a
crime.
If you want to go looking for something that "will afford
evidence", then explain what evidence it will provide.
In this example, you might want to seize Cater's computer and
cell phone. Your application should explain why:
Cater's remarks to his supervisor makes me believe that Cater sent emails in which he demanded Waldock's apology. Those emails will tend to show whether Cater demanded an apology, what language he used to ask for it, and whether he received one. This will tend to show whether or not he had a motive to kill Waldock.
In my experience, current computers and cell phones can store, send and receive email. Even different devices can send and receive email on the same account. Therefore, I believe that either his cell phones, his computers or all of them will afford evidence about this killing.
Section 2 of the Criminal Code defines "offence-related property" to mean things that were stolen or used to steal, or to commit any other offence under the Criminal Code.