Fifth Corner Consulting Request a confidential call

Warrant, Disclosure, & Investigation Review

I trained the affiants. I ran the investigators. Now I grade the work.

Independent review of how the police or other investigators built the file. Scott Hayes is a former RCMP Sergeant who ran international criminal investigations and taught police to draft search warrants and wiretap authorizations.

Request a 15-minute confidential call Disclosure reviews from $750 flat

Information to Obtain · s. 487 · Grounds (illustrative)

¶ 14Based on my training and experience, and the experience of other senior investigators, this was a drug deal.

Boilerplate. Does the affiant's experience actually match their assertions? Who were these “other” investigators?

¶ 15A confidential source advised that XXXXXXXXXXXX is in possession of cocaine at the residence. The source is a past proven and reliable source.

Proven how? How many tips? What came of them? Ever wrong?

¶ 16On March 3, surveillance observed the target enter the residence at 14:10.

One visit, 19 days before the ITO. Stale.

A qualified source paragraph sets out how many times the source has provided information, over what period, what it led to (warrants, seizures, charges), whether any of it proved false, and what the source was paid or promised.

The name

A judge reviews the warrant within its four corners. I look at the fifth.

On a facial review, the Information to Obtain is judged on what it says. The weaknesses that matter are usually in what it doesn't say: what the affiant knew and left out, what was assumed and written as fact, and where the investigation took a shortcut that the paperwork covers over.

I've drafted these documents, taught investigators how to write them, and reviewed them before they went to a judge. I know where they are built quickly, and where the gaps tend to be.

Who reviews your file

Scott Hayes

Services

Three reviews, each done before your strategy is set.

Disclosure review

An early triage of the Crown's disclosure, done before you commit to a strategy. It shows where the investigation is weak and whether it's worth looking deeper.

  • Timeline from first police involvement to charge approval
  • Decision points where other investigative paths were available and not taken
  • Tunnel vision, continuity gaps and unexplained leaps
  • Short written memo and a debrief call
$750flat fee

Warrant review: grounds and execution

A structured review of how the grounds were built and presented for authorization, and how the order was actually carried out. A warrant can hold up on its face and still be executed improperly. The evidence of that is usually in the officers' notes and reports, not the ITO.

  • Whether investigative steps support the grounds as written
  • Omitted or understated facts, and assumptions written as fact
  • Boilerplate that hides case-specific weakness
  • How the search was executed: timing, scope, places searched and things seized
  • Officers' notes and reports checked against what the order authorized, including the report to a justice and the detention of seized items
  • Where the affiant and the searching officers will be exposed on cross-examination
Scoped and quoted per file

Investigation review

For companies charged by a workplace safety, environmental or other non-financial regulator. I review how the inspector's investigation was scoped, conducted and documented, and whether the evidence supports the charge.

  • Scope and lines of inquiry that were dropped or never opened
  • Conclusions that go past the evidence
  • Neutrality, procedural fairness and documentation
  • Structured written assessment for counsel
Scoped and quoted per file

Who this is for

Criminal defence counsel

You have a large disclosure package, a warrant at the centre of the Crown's case, and not enough hours to rebuild the police file yourself.

Corporate and regulatory counsel

Your client faces charges under workplace safety, environmental or similar legislation, and the case rests on an inspector's investigation that no one has tested yet.

I work through counsel only. I don't take files involving financial regulators, and I don't take matters directly from members of the public.

How a file runs

  1. Confidential intake call. 15 minutes to define the issue, the deadline and the decision the review will support.
  2. Conflict check and written scope. Done before any documents change hands.
  3. Secure upload. Material is kept encrypted, access-controlled and logged.
  4. Review. Every issue is traced to a source, a gap or a stated inference.
  5. Written report and debrief call. Prepared for counsel only.

What I don't do

  • No legal opinions and no Charter analysis. That's your job.
  • No drafting of submissions and no conducting examinations.
  • No field investigation. I review the existing record only.
  • No promised outcomes. If the investigation is sound, the report says so.

Start with a call

Tell me what's in the file. I'll tell you whether a review is worth it.

Email to set up a 15-minute call. It's confidential and free. Please don't send any documents until the conflict check is done.

Serving Ontario and all regions across Canada.