was uploaded from the appellant’s home’s Internet connection,
and resultantly issued the warrant.
(5) Section 24(2)
 The SCAJ found that the Spencer breach was the only
s. 8 breach. In view of the fact that Spencer was released after
this search warrant had been issued and executed, the police conduct fell on the lower end of the spectrum. Considering this
together with the other two factors in R. v. Grant,  2 S.C.R.
353,  S.C.J. No. 32, 2009 SCC 32, the SCAJ reasoned that
an order excluding the evidence should not be granted. In my
view, he was correct to do so.
 The SCAJ correctly concluded that the appellant’s s. 8
rights had not been infringed except for the Spencer breach. He
properly declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2). I would
dismiss the appeal.
R. v. Bingley
[126 O.R. (3d) 525]
Criminal law — Impaired driving — Evidence — Opinion evidence of
drug recognition expert admissible to prove offence of drug-impaired
driving without necessity of Mohan voir dire.
NOTE: The catchlines above relate to a decision of the Court of Appeal for
Ontario. An appeal of this judgment to the Supreme Court of Canada (McLachlin
C.J.C. and Abella, Moldaver, Côté and Brown JJ. (Karakatsanis and Gascon JJ.
dissenting)) was dismissed on February 23, 2017 (2017 SCC 12).
Trevor Brown and Eric Granger, for appellant.
Joan Barrett, for respondent.
Mark C. Halfyard and Breana Vandebeek, for intervenor the
Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario).
Jasmine T. Akbarali and Stuart A. Zacharias, for intervenor
the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.