Frank Miller

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to consider self-defence and by failing to apply the middle ground of the W.(D.) framework.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no air of reality to the self-defence claim and concluding that the trial judge's reasons, read as a whole, properly applied the W.(D.) principles in rejecting the accused's evidence and finding it did not raise a reasonable doubt.

The sentence appeal was abandoned as the custodial portion had been served.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's comments on the performance of witnesses demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the summary conviction appeal judge that while the comments were ill-advised and could cause concern if taken out of context, they did not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the police use of Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) aerial camera technology to detect heat emanating from a home constituted a search under section 8 of the Charter.

The Court found a serious breach of the accused's privacy rights, excluded the real evidence under section 24(2), and entered an acquittal.

A note appended to the decision indicates that the Supreme Court of Canada subsequently allowed an appeal of this judgment.

The RCMP used an airplane equipped with a Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) camera to overfly the accused's home without a warrant.

The FLIR image, which detected heat emanations consistent with a marijuana grow operation, was used to obtain a search warrant.

The accused argued the FLIR overflight violated his right against unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the use of FLIR technology did not violate s. 8, as the accused did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the heat distribution patterns on the external surfaces of his home.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction restored.

The appellant was convicted of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking after police used Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) aerial camera technology to detect heat emanating from his home, which led to a search warrant.

On appeal, the court held that the use of FLIR technology to measure heat emanations from a private residence constitutes a search under section 8 of the Charter.

Because the search was conducted without prior judicial authorization and no exigent circumstances existed, it was unreasonable.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding the breach serious and noting that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was allowed and acquittals were entered.