The accused brought a supplementary application under s. 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude expert opinion evidence, arguing it was tainted by physical evidence previously found to be obtained in violation of his Charter rights.
The court dismissed the application, holding that expert opinion evidence does not constitute 'evidence obtained in a manner that infringed' Charter rights for the purpose of s. 24(2) exclusion.
The court clarified that s. 24(2) applies to physical, bodily, or derivative evidence, and that the admission of the expert opinion would not adversely affect the accused's ability to make full answer and defence.
