E. Neubauer

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing his section 8 Charter application.

The appellant contended the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant for his residence lacked sufficient grounds.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the amplified record and found the trial judge made no error in concluding the ITO contained reasonable and probable grounds that an offence had been committed and that evidence would be found at the appellant's residence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought to exclude his statement to police under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his s. 10(b) right to counsel of choice.

Upon arrest, the applicant repeatedly requested to speak with a specific lawyer.

After learning the chosen lawyer was a civil litigator and unavailable until later that day, the police officer presented the applicant with the option to speak to duty counsel or another lawyer, without advising him of his right to wait a reasonable time for his counsel of choice.

The court found this constituted a breach of s. 10(b), as the police improperly steered the applicant away from his chosen counsel.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the breach was serious and impacted the applicant's protected interests, warranting the exclusion of the statement.