submissions. I fix costs to be paid by Icona to RI Vaughan in the
amount of $1,000.
Her Majesty the Queen v. Schulz*
[Indexed as: R. v. Schulz]
2018 ONCA 598
Court of Appeal for Ontario, Watt, D.M. Brown and Huscroft JJ.A.
June 29, 2018
Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Search and seizure — Exclusion of
evidence — Police obtaining warrant to search accused lawyer’s residence
for electronic devices and documents that might contain evidence of child
pornography offence — Warrant containing special provisions to protect
solicitor-client privilege — Trial judge finding that police violated s. 8 of
Charter by delaying report to justice, failing to make request to detain
seized devices for more than 90 days, failing to seal six devices which contained no relevant information, failing to take detailed notes of examination of sealed devices and failing to return devices which did not contain
offence material to accused — Trial judge reasonably deciding to exclude
only six unsealed items for which no extension to detain was obtained and
devices on which no offensive materials were found — Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 8, 24(2).
Criminal law — Sentencing — Child protection order — Internet limiting terms — Accused convicted of possession of child pornography —
Accused argued at trial no s. 161 order should be made as having
adduced evidence presenting at low end of risk of recidivism — Trial
judge imposing ten-year prohibition order under s. 161(1)(d) of Criminal
Code which contained terms limiting accused’s access to Internet —
Accused’s appeal from Internet limiting terms dismissed — Possession of
child pornography being one of risks that s. 161(1)(d) was enacted to
prevent — No basis for interfering with trial judge’s discretionary
determination that s. 161 order appropriate — Internet limiting terms
appropriate despite lack of evidence that accused contacted or attempted
to contact children — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 161(1)(d).
The accused, a lawyer, was convicted of possession of child pornography. The
police obtained a search warrant to search his residence for electronic devices
and documents that might contain evidence of child pornography offences. The
warrant contained special provisions to protect solicitor-client privilege. The
trial judge found that the police violated the accused’s rights under s. 8 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the following ways: (1) there was
a one-month delay in making a report to a justice under s. 489.1(1)(b)( ii) of the
* Vous trouverez la traduction française à la p. 142, post.