argument, the appellant repeated his position that the examiner
did not comply with the examination order.
 I am not persuaded by this submission. The trial judge’s
interpretation of the examination order was a practical and reasonable one. Her assessment that the examiner’s conduct fell
within the scope of the examination order was reasonable and
well-grounded in the evidence.
 As to his other s. 8 grounds of appeal, the appellant has
not identified any error in law or misapprehension of the evidence by the trial judge. Accordingly, I would not interfere with
The trial judge’s s. 24(2) findings
 The appellant’s main submission on his conviction appeal
is that the trial judge erred in her assessment of the seriousness
of the s. 8 infringements that she found. The appellant submits
the overall misconduct of the police was more serious than the
trial judge found.
 In support of that submission, the appellant moved for
leave to file fresh evidence on the appeal.
 In an affidavit in support of that motion, the appellant
deposed that notwithstanding that the trial judge had ordered on
February 19, 2016 that seized materials which did not contain
offensive materials be returned to the appellant pursuant to s. 20
of the examination order, as of September 25, 2017 the police had
not returned those materials to him. The appellant contends that
this evidence is relevant to the issue of the seriousness of police
misconduct regarding their treatment of the seized materials.
 The respondent opposes the motion, primarily on the
ground that the appellant has not met the cogency requirement
for the admission of fresh evidence on the appeal: R. v. Manasseri
(2016), 132 O.R. (3d) 401,  O.J. No. 5004, 2016 ONCA 703,
at paras. 202-203 and 205, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused 
S.C.C.A. No. 513. The respondent submits that the continued
detention of the items in issue resulted from an arrangement
between counsel, which was disclosed to the trial judge at the
May 31, 2016 sentencing hearing.
 I accept the respondent’s submission. The transcript of the
sentencing hearing discloses such an arrangement. Given that
arrangement, the appellant’s proposed fresh evidence has no
bearing on the issue of the police’s handling of the seized
materials. I would dismiss the appellant’s motion for leave to
introduce fresh evidence.
 In considering the appellant’s main submissions regarding
the trial judge’s s. 24(2) findings, one must recall that deference