The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and robbery and appealed his convictions and sentence.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in her R. v. Grant analysis by characterizing the impact of a s. 10(b) Charter breach (unreasonable delay in access to counsel of choice) as "neutral," when it should have weighed in favour of exclusion.
However, the Court applied the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, concluding that even if the impugned evidence (satchel and knife) had been excluded, the remaining overwhelming identification evidence would have inevitably led to the same convictions.
The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned due to lack of submissions.
