After obtaining a telewarrant, a police officer attended at the accused's premises. On arrival, he knocked and not hearing a response, knocked again and then entered, saying 'police'. During the course of the search, quantities of marijuana, cash and unregistered firearms were discovered. The accused challenged the legality of both the warrant and the subsequent search. The use of a telewarrant had been directed by the local judge, in order to avoid the local resident judge becoming disqualified from hearing matters arising from the execution of such warrants.Although the officer's failure to identify himself following the first knock on the door was a violation of the Charter in that there were no exigent circumstances to warrant entry without first announcing his presence at the door, the evidence obtained as a result of the search should not be excluded as the evidence was non-conscriptive and the breach was inadvertent and not made in bad faith; as the use of the telewarrant was directed by the local judge, it was not a violation of the Charter to use this procedure and the warrant was in all other respects valid. Although the name of the officer seeking the warrant was omitted, the name was well known to the issuing justice of the peace as well as to the accused and the information on which he relied, although in one instance including a confidential source who had never previously provided information, was nevertheless sufficient, having regard to the detail in the information provided and the degree of corroboration from other confidential sources obtained by the officer involved. The court commented on the fact that the regular use of telewarrants in such circumstances could not be a long-term solution.