Sandra Caponecchia

The appellant, facing mortgage fraud charges, was subpoenaed to testify at the preliminary inquiry of a co-accused.

He moved to quash the subpoena, arguing the Crown was on a fishing expedition for his own trial and that testifying would prejudice his right to silence.

The motion judge refused to quash the subpoena, finding the appellant likely had material evidence and was fully protected by derivative use immunity under the Canada Evidence Act and the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for obstructing a police officer and possession of a prohibited weapon.

He argued the trial judge erred in the mens rea analysis for obstruction, misapprehended evidence regarding a suspected stolen vehicle, and erred in finding a buck knife opened by centrifugal force.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge applied the proper mens rea analysis, correctly understood the evidence, and was entitled to rely on the police officer's demonstration of the knife.