Jassiganth Vamadevan

The appellant, Marco Franco, appealed his conviction for driving with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood causing bodily harm, and his six-month custodial sentence.

The appeal challenged the lawfulness of the roadside breath demand, whether he was arbitrarily detained, whether his right to be informed of the reason for arrest was violated, and whether his right to counsel was delayed.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the breath demand lawful, no arbitrary detention, no s. 10(a) Charter violation due to a "fresh start" by the breath technician, and no s. 10(b) Charter violation despite some delay in accessing counsel.

The court also found the six-month sentence was fit and within the appropriate range, upholding the trial judge's balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors.

The appellants, C.I. and M.G., appealed their convictions for sexual assault.

The appeal raised four grounds: improper leading questions during examination-in-chief of the complainant, denial of cross-examination of a co-accused, failure to properly instruct the jury on the limited use of the complainant's prior consistent statements, and erroneous exclusion of video and photographic evidence under s. 278.92 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while some procedural errors occurred, they did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and the trial judge's exclusion of the video and photographs was proper given their minimal probative value and significant prejudicial effect on the complainant's dignity and privacy.

The applicant brought a Garofoli application to exclude evidence obtained from a search of his residence and motor vehicle, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained material misrepresentations and omissions.

The court found that the affiant included misleading information regarding a witness's belief about whether a firearm was real and whether it was kept at the applicant's residence.

Concluding that the affiant lacked reasonable and probable grounds to authorize the search, the court found a breach of the applicant's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, emphasizing the serious impact of the breach on the applicant's privacy interests in his home.