Omar Abou El Hassan

The accused, Vinod Vasavan, sought a bail variation under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to permit contact with his wife, who had recanted her initial allegations of domestic violence.

The Crown opposed the variation.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review an undertaking given to a peace officer under s. 498(1)(c).

The court held that s. 520 only applies to orders made by a justice under s. 515, and that the proper recourse for varying such an undertaking, in the absence of consent, is an application to a justice under s. 502(2) to replace the undertaking with a release order.

The appellant, convicted of drug trafficking, firearm, and weapons offences, appealed his convictions, arguing that seized evidence should be excluded due to Charter violations (ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b)).

The trial judge found violations but erred by not conducting a s. 24(2) analysis, believing no causal link existed between the breach and evidence discovery.

The Court of Appeal conducted the s. 24(2) analysis, balancing the severity of breaches, their impact on the appellant's Charter interests, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

Despite serious breaches, the evidence was admitted due to the minimal impact on the appellant's rights and the significant public interest in adjudicating serious firearm and drug offences.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.