The appellant was convicted of incest and 46 counts of forgery.
The Crown alleged that the appellant's co-accused and husband was actually her son, and that they had fathered children together, including a deceased child.
The appellant appealed, arguing that DNA warrants used to compare their blood with the deceased child's blood violated her Charter rights, and that the trial judge erred in failing to give a W.(D.) charge regarding exculpatory defence evidence.
The Court of Appeal held that while the DNA comparison between the two accused breached section 8, the evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2).
Furthermore, although the trial judge erred in the jury charge regarding reasonable doubt and credibility, the curative proviso applied due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
The appeal was dismissed.
