Court of Appeal for Ontario
CITATION: R. v. Bourdon, 2013 ONCA 86
DATE: 20130212
DOCKET: C53397
Laskin, Rouleau and Watt JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
René Ronald Bourdon
Appellant
Counsel:
René Ronald Bourdon, acting in person
Gerald Chan, acting as duty counsel
Michal Fairburn, for the respondent
Heard: February 7, 2013
On appeal from the conviction entered on August 23, 2010 by Justice James R.H. Turnbull of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] Duty counsel argued two grounds of appeal:
The search of the computer bag violated s. 8 of the Charter because it was not covered by the warrant.
The search of the contents of the computer also violated s. 8 because it was based on an overly broad warrant.
[2] On the first ground, the trial judge found that the search of the bag was incidental to the search of the computer. We are inclined to agree with the trial judge’s finding. However, as the Crown pointed out, this issue need not be resolved because everything on the DVD in the computer bag was also found on the computer.
[3] Thus, this appeal turns on the second ground argued by duty counsel – whether the search of the computer was based on an overly broad warrant. In our view, the warrant was not overly broad.
[4] The warrant was based on an ITO that alleged a breach of a specific condition of the LTSO, namely that the appellant not have any access to the internet or possess any computer that had internet capability. Thus, the parole authorities sought a warrant to search for breaches of the LTSO, and attached that certificate to the ITO.
[5] The warrant that was issued was therefore not overly broad because it was anchored in the specific conditions of the LTSO. We add that the computer would only reasonably yield information about some of these conditions.
[6] Accordingly, we are satisfied that there was no breach of s. 8 of the Charter. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.