Tyler Matthew Da Silva Schnare

The accused, Christopher Milford, challenged the admissibility of his confession and evidence seized under two search warrants, alleging breaches of his Charter rights under sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found the first search warrant valid.

However, it determined that Milford's s. 10(b) right to counsel was breached due to an unexplained two-hour delay in facilitating contact with counsel at the police station.

Furthermore, his s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights were breached because police failed to inform him that he was being investigated for new voyeurism charges involving different victims (Patricia and Esther) before his seven-hour interview, which significantly increased his jeopardy.

The court concluded that the confession and the evidence seized under the second warrant (which was largely based on the unconstitutionally obtained confession) must be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to the serious impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests.

The Crown applied to revoke A.H.'s bail post-conviction for criminal harassment and attempted abduction, pending sentencing and a potential dangerous/long-term offender application.

The Crown argued for revocation on secondary (public safety) and tertiary (public confidence) grounds, citing an outdated threat assessment and the gravity of the offences.

The defence contended the threat assessment was stale and that revoking bail would impede A.H.'s ability to prepare for upcoming legal proceedings.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding no new facts to justify revocation, noting A.H.'s consistent compliance with strict bail conditions for over two years, and reiterating that post-conviction bail revocation is an exception, not the rule.