The appellant was convicted of historical sexual offences against his stepchildren.
During the investigation, police obtained a general warrant to view and photograph the appellant's anal area to corroborate a complainant's description of a skin tag.
The police executed the warrant ten months after the appellant's initial arrest without re-advising him of his right to counsel.
The Court of Appeal held that this failure violated the appellant's s. 10(b) Charter rights, as the execution of the warrant constituted a distinct detention requiring legal advice.
However, the court found no s. 8 violation, as requiring the appellant to spread his buttocks was a reasonable manner of executing the warrant.
Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2).
The conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.
