Joseph A. Loconte

The defendant was charged with accessing, possessing, and making available child pornography.

The defence sought to exclude evidence (computer data and statements) due to alleged Charter violations (ss. 9, 10(a), 10(b)).

The court found a violation of s. 10(b) regarding the defendant's statements, both at his home and the police station, and excluded them under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding their admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

However, the court found no causal or contextual connection between the Charter breach and the discovery of child pornography on the computer, as the computer was found and searched independently.

The compelling admissible evidence from the computer was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant was tried on charges of Mischief and Over 80.

He sought to exclude evidence due to Charter violations, specifically an unreasonable search and seizure under section 8, arising from the police's warrantless entry into his father's home.

The court found that the police entry was unlawful as the consent obtained from the defendant's father was not informed, lacking disclosure of the police's dual purpose (welfare check and criminal investigation) and the father's right to refuse entry.

Consequently, the evidence obtained from this breach was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, leading to the dismissal of all charges.

The appellant appealed convictions for driving with excessive blood alcohol, possession of marijuana, and possession of cocaine, arguing Charter breaches related to arbitrary detention, unreasonable search, and the right to counsel.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the seizure of marijuana lawful as an incident of arrest for stunt driving, the detention not arbitrary, and no breach of the right to be informed of reasons for detention.

While there was a five-minute delay in informing the appellant of his right to counsel, no evidence was obtained as a result.

The court also found that roadside questioning about alcohol consumption, even after the appellant requested counsel, was permissible under the Orbansky doctrine as part of the impaired driving screening process, thus no breach of the right to counsel occurred in that regard.

The defendant was tried on two informations: one containing four counts (care and control while impaired by alcohol or drug, care and control with blood alcohol exceeding legal limit, possession of cocaine, and possession of marijuana), and a second alleging stunt driving.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found a violation of section 10(b) but declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2).

The defendant was found guilty of over 80, possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana, and stunt driving, but acquitted on the impaired charge.