The appellant appealed his conviction for attempted break and enter and possession of burglary tools.
He argued that the trial judge erred in his section 24(2) Charter analysis and that the finding of guilt was unreasonable.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to infer that the CPIC check, which led to the discovery of an arrest warrant and the subsequent lawful search incident to arrest, would have occurred regardless of an initial unlawful pat-down search.
The court also held the finding of guilt was reasonable given the eyewitness description, the appellant's proximity to the crime scene, and his possession of burglary tools.
