Isaac Ju-Young Heo

The applicants sought to exclude firearms and drug-related evidence, arguing that initial warrantless searches of their residence and subsequent searches conducted under warrants violated their section 8 Charter rights.

The court found that the broad "clearing search" of the entire residence, and a second search of a bedroom for firearms, were unreasonable.

It also determined that the subsequently issued search warrants were invalid because they relied on unlawfully obtained information and failed to meet *Lavallee* guidelines for law office searches.

Consequently, the court granted the applications, excluding all challenged evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter due to the seriousness of the Charter breaches and their significant impact on the applicants' privacy interests, which outweighed the public interest in adjudication on the merits.

The appellant appealed three convictions for sexual assault with a weapon, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appeal focused on two grounds: counsel's alleged failure to inform him about available modes of trial (including the right to a preliminary inquiry) and failure to lead evidence of the complainant's potential motive to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's fresh evidence affidavit lacked credibility and that he failed to prove he was not informed about trial modes.

The court also found that the alleged motive to fabricate was irrelevant as the allegations predated the purported motive.