Can police exceed the scope of a search warrant?

R v Bhatti, 2025 ONCA 697: Pomerance JA dissents on whether police could use ambiguity in a warrant for a victim’s phone to expand the scope of the search to a secret compartment in his vehicle.

The majority found police experience was enough to amplify the text of the warrant itself. Pomerance insists that our system of prior judicial authorization depends on the police not taking matters into their own hands. If officers believed the victim might be hiding a phone in a secret compartment of his vehicle, they should have said so to the authorizing justice and had that belief evaluated for reasonableness in advance, not ex post facto.

The majority and dissent part company only on the application of the law. Pomerance JA’s sharp summary of relevant legal principles remains binding—and is worth reading as an urgent reminder of respecting s. 8 fundamentals.