A significant pre-trial ruling has been delivered in the ongoing criminal case against Andrew Dainard and Sara Manchisi, who are facing serious charges including possession for the purpose of trafficking and various firearms offences following a major police investigation into illegal storefronts1. Justice J. De Filippis of the Ontario Court of Justice released reasons on November 7, 2025, dismissing defense motions that sought to compel further disclosure from the Crown and to cross-examine the police officer who swore the affidavit used to obtain a search warrant for the defendants’ residence. The decision secures the procedural path toward trial, emphasizing the high threshold required for accused persons to challenge the validity of search warrants through the cross-examination of police affiants.
The charges against Dainard and Manchisi stem from a broader investigation initiated in December 2023 by the Provincial Joint Forces Cannabis Enforcement Team (PJFCET). The task force was investigating the illegal sale of cannabis and tobacco products from various storefronts operating under the brand name “Indige Smoke.” Investigators alleged that none of these establishments held the necessary licenses to sell such products under provincial or federal regulations. The investigation initially led to a series of search authorizations granted on March 7, 2024, targeting addresses in Thorold, Welland, and Fort Erie. The execution of these initial warrants resulted in the seizure of approximately $250,000 worth of illegal cannabis and tobacco products.
Despite the significant seizures in March, police intelligence indicated that the “Indige Smoke” locations had reopened and resumed the sale of illicit products. Investigators identified several individuals believed to be involved in the transport and sale of the contraband, including Andrew Dainard. By May 6, 2024, police had obtained a tracking warrant for a cellular device and a vehicle associated with Dainard, allowing them to monitor his movements as part of the escalating probe. The investigation faced hurdles, however, as the police applied for judicial authorization to search various locations on May 30, May 31, and early June, facing three consecutive denials before a fourth application was finally granted on June 4, 2024.
The successful June 4 application, known as an Information to Obtain (ITO), granted police the authority to enter and search nine specific locations related to six persons of interest. These locations included several “Indige Smoke” storefronts, a storage unit where Dainard had been observed, the residence of two other suspects, and specifically, a residence located at 7739 Shaw Street in Niagara Falls, which was identified as Dainard’s home. The execution of the search warrant at the Shaw Street residence allegedly yielded significant evidence. The Crown claims that officers seized approximately 75 grams of suspected cocaine, digital scales, $1,400 in Canadian currency, a Canuck 12-gauge shotgun, a Keltec Lugar P11 handgun, and approximately 170 rounds of ammunition. Dainard and his common-law spouse, Sara Manchisi, were present at the time and were subsequently arrested.
As the case moved toward trial, defense counsel for Dainard and Manchisi brought two specific motions before Justice De Filippis. The first was a request for extensive additional disclosure, filed just one day before the scheduled argument on the cross-examination motion. The defense sought all source documents for all facets of the investigations, which involved approximately 50 police officers. The defense argued that this material was necessary to investigate whether the police affiant had made full, fair, and frank disclosure in the ITO. This request came despite a prior judicial pretrial in August 2025 where it was noted that disclosure was complete and the parties were ready for trial.
Justice De Filippis dismissed the disclosure motion, characterizing it as a last-minute request that lacked focus and threatened to delay a case that was already 17 months old. The court cited the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Cody, which emphasizes the collective responsibility of all justice system participants to prevent unreasonable delay. The judge noted that granting such a sweeping request after the parties had already confirmed readiness would upset the trial schedule. The ruling highlighted that while the Crown has a continuing obligation to disclose relevant evidence, defense requests must be timely and cannot be used to stall proceedings without a specific, grounded basis.
The primary legal battle centered on the defense’s application for leave to cross-examine the police affiant. Under Canadian law, judicial orders such as search warrants are presumptively valid. A defendant does not have an automatic right to cross-examine the officer who swore the affidavit supporting the warrant. To obtain “leave” or permission to do so, the defense must demonstrate that cross-examination is necessary to make a full answer and defense. This generally requires showing a basis for the view that the cross-examination will elicit testimony tending to discredit the existence of the reasonable and probable grounds required to issue the warrant. It is a screening mechanism designed to prevent what the courts describe as “fishing expeditions.”
The defense raised numerous challenges to the 87-page ITO, attempting to show inconsistencies or misleading information that would justify questioning the officer. One specific point of contention involved the use of the term “Master Case.” The defense argued that this was not a standard term of art and that its use was misleading regarding whether a legal violation had occurred. They contended that the affiant failed to explain what a “Master Case” meant and altered descriptions to suggest items were heavy without justification. The Crown responded by pointing out that the term was taken directly from surveillance reports authored by other officers and that the ITO included photographs of the large rectangular cardboard boxes in question, allowing the issuing justice to see exactly what was being described.
Another major area of dispute involved tracking data and surveillance. The defense argued that the charts provided by the police were unclear and relied on color-coded designations without sufficient explanation. They further asserted that the data was speculative because Dainard’s gym was located in close proximity to the target locations, suggesting his presence in the area could have been innocent. The Crown rebutted this by noting that only one of the nine target locations was in the same city as the gym. Furthermore, on at least one occasion, physical surveillance confirmed Dainard was at a specific target location, corroborating the tracking data. The court accepted the Crown’s position that seeking to question the officers about data variances in the hopes of finding an inconsistency fit the definition of a fishing expedition.
The defense also challenged the warrant regarding the seizure of electronic devices. They argued that the affiant had no basis for believing evidence would be found on devices at the Shaw Street residence because physical surveillance showed no video storage equipment at the home. The Crown clarified that the warrant sought authorization to search for devices capable of facilitating orders from the illicit online dispensary, not just CCTV storage. The court found that the defense had not provided an evidentiary basis to conclude the affiant’s statements were misleading or that the search for digital evidence was unjustified based on the nature of the alleged trafficking operation.
Further arguments regarding the description of tobacco products were also rejected. The defense claimed the affiant misled the justice by referring to the Criminal Code section regarding selling tobacco without a license when the sub-affiants (other officers watching the stores) did not specifically observe unstamped tobacco. The Crown countered that the “Indige Smoke” locations publicly advertised the sale of tobacco and cannabis despite having no licenses from Health Canada or the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario. Previous warrants executed at the same storefronts had resulted in the seizure of large quantities of illicit products. The judge determined that the affiant had explicitly set out the relevant legal provisions and that the inference of criminal activity was reasonable given the context of the investigation.
Justice De Filippis ultimately concluded that the defense failed to meet the threshold required to grant leave for cross-examination. The ruling stated that the applicants had not identified any area where the affiant failed in his obligation to be full, frank, and fair. The court found no demonstration of material misrepresentations, errors, or omissions that would have undermined the grounds for issuing the warrant. The judge noted that the Crown’s detailed response chart correctly explained why each of the defense’s points failed to strike at the heart of the warrant’s validity.
The court emphasized that a Garofoli review (the hearing to determine if a warrant is valid) is not intended to test the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused but is an evidentiary hearing regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained under a court order. Because the defense could not point to specific evidence showing the affiant knew or ought to have known information was false, their application was denied. The judge reiterated that pointing to minor potential inconsistencies or simply questioning credibility is insufficient to overturn the presumption of validity attached to a search warrant.
With both the disclosure motion and the application to cross-examine the affiant dismissed, the case will proceed to the next stage. The defense will still have the opportunity to challenge the “facial validity” of the warrant, which involves arguing that the information in the ITO, taken as true, was insufficient to justify the search. However, they will not be permitted to question the police officer on the witness stand in an attempt to find flaws in the information provided to the issuing justice. The trial remains scheduled to continue in December.
Read more crime stories here.
