Law360 Canada ( August 7, 2024, 1:12 PM EDT) -- Appeal by appellant from trial judge’s rulings allowing application of two officers to be excused from testifying due to their mental health on grounds that trial judge erred in excusing Officer DG from testifying. The appellant was initially charged with sexual assault, sexual interference and child luring in relation to one young complainant. A search warrant was issued to search the appellant’s home. Appendix A of the information to obtain (“ITO”) for the warrant stated that police would search for electronic media and devices, documents relating to the appellant’s occupation of the home and child pornography. Appendix B of the ITO listed offences for which police had grounds to believe the search would afford evidence. Appendix B did not list any child pornography offences. As a result of the search, additional charges were laid for the possession and distribution of child pornography. Appellant challenged the search warrant. Although the trial judge found that appellant’s rights had been violated, she declined to exclude the evidence. Officer Pelletier was the affiant of the ITO and Officer DG had directed the search on site. The trial judge allowed Officer DG’s application to be excused. Officer Pelletier abandoned his excusal application. The trial judge dismissed the appellant’s application seeking disclosure of Officer Pelletier’s medical records and leave to cross-examine him on his mental health when he drafted the ITO....