Dr. Frey

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault, child luring, and child pornography offences, appealed three rulings from his trial.

He challenged the trial judge's decision to admit child pornography evidence despite a s. 8 Charter breach regarding the search warrant's scope, her refusal to allow cross-examination of the affiant (Det. Pelletier) on his mental health and disclose his medical records, and the excusal of another officer (Officer D.G.) from testifying.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's s. 24(2) Charter analysis, finding no error in balancing the Grant factors.

The court also affirmed the trial judge's discretionary decisions regarding cross-examination and disclosure, noting the appellant's failure to lay a proper evidentiary foundation for his Charter applications.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment (CAT) under criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the CAT designation, arguing the applicant's impairments were caused by pre-existing conditions and prior accidents.

The Tribunal applied the "but for" test and found the accident caused the applicant's psychological impairments, including somatic symptom disorder.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a marked impairment in activities of daily living, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation, thereby meeting the CAT threshold.

However, the applicant's claims for travel expenses for his daughter's flight and out-of-town CAT assessments were dismissed for lack of evidence establishing they were reasonable and necessary.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was also dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying him non-earner benefits.

He argued the Tribunal erred in fact and law by rejecting certain medical evidence, including a letter from Dr. Galley, and by accepting the evidence of Dr. Dessouki despite alleged procedural flaws.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal properly weighed the evidence, including the applicant's own testimony and family evidence, and correctly applied the legal test for non-earner benefits.

No error of law or fact was established.