J. M. Moldaver

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the issuance and execution of a search warrant for records.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the conditions imposed on the warrant's execution were sufficient and that the appellant failed to show a section 8 Charter violation affecting the issuing judge's jurisdiction.

The Court left open the possibility for the appellant to argue at trial that certain documents are inadmissible due to common-law privilege or a section 7 Charter violation.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misdirected the jury by instructing them that prior consistent statements could be used to bolster the complainant's credibility, despite there being no allegation of recent fabrication.

The Court declined to apply the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code because the jury clearly had concerns about the complainant's credibility.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered on the charge of sexual interference, restricted to the allegations of digital penetration.