COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Trotter, Zarnett and Copeland JJ.A.
BETWEEN
His Majesty the King
Respondent
and
Joseph Paul William Fraser
Appellant
Joseph Paul William Fraser, acting in person
Andrew Hotke, for the respondent
Heard and rendered orally: July 3, 2026
On appeal from the order of Justice George W. King of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 6, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1We see no error in the application judge’s decision to dismiss the appellant’s application, pursuant to s. 490 of the Criminal Code, for return of his cell phone.
2Further, as the appellant’s trial is now ongoing, the issue of ultimate return of the phone can be addressed by the trial judge.
3With respect to the appellant’s request for access to and copies of some material from the seized phone, there is no right of appeal from a decision in relation to access to and examination of a detained item, pursuant to s. 490(15) of the Criminal Code. As a result, we do not have jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s request for access to documents on the phone.
4Having said that, Mr. Hotke fairly concedes that the appellant would be entitled to bring a further application for access to and copies of particular materials on the phone, as long as he provides particularized information that he did not previously provide about why access is necessary. Counsel for the appellant in his trial has copies of the material seized from the phone, subject to an order that it can only be used for purposes of full answer and defence in his criminal trial. If the appellant is able to identify for the Crown specific documents that he requires for other ongoing legal proceedings, consideration should be given by the Crown Attorney’s office as to whether a consent order could be reached that would avoid the need for a further application.
5The appeal is dismissed.
“Gary Trotter J.A.”
“B. Zarnett J.A.”
“J. Copeland J.A.”
1This appeal is subject to a publication ban pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.