Aaron Harnett

The appellant appealed his conviction for a home invasion, arguing that the trial judge's decision should receive less deference due to prior errors, that the trial judge misapprehended identification evidence, and that the reasons were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that prior corrections do not affect deference, the trial judge made no substantive error in using a tattoo and gold tooth covers as identification evidence, and the reasons were brief but adequate.

The sentence appeal was abandoned.

The appellant pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon against her child and was sentenced to nine months in prison and three years' probation.

The trial judge declined to impose a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

On appeal, the appellant introduced fresh evidence demonstrating significant progress in family reunification and support from the Children's Aid Society for a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, set aside the custodial sentence, and substituted a nine-month conditional sentence to be served in the community, finding it appropriate in the changed circumstances.

The appellants appealed an order upholding their committal to stand trial for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to entitle the preliminary hearing justice to infer possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard three appeals concerning the constitutionality of s. 488.1 of the Criminal Code, which sets out a procedure for determining claims of solicitor-client privilege in relation to documents seized from a law office under a warrant.

The Court held that s. 488.1 violates s. 8 of the Charter because it more than minimally impairs solicitor-client privilege.

The provision allows privilege to be lost through the inaction of the lawyer, requires the naming of clients, lacks notice to clients, imposes strict time limits without judicial discretion, and permits the Attorney General to inspect documents before privilege is determined.

The Court struck down s. 488.1 and established common law guidelines for law office searches.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the Criminal Code procedure governing seizure of documents from a lawyer's office during a criminal investigation.

The court held that solicitor-client privilege attracts the highest level of protection and that a statutory search procedure must impair that confidentiality only minimally.

Section 488.1 failed that standard because privilege could be lost automatically through lawyer inaction, because the provision required disclosure of the client's name to the state in order to claim privilege, and because it permitted Crown inspection of the impugned document on the privilege application.

The court concluded that the mandated procedure produced an unreasonable search and seizure contrary to s. 8 and, absent any s. 1 justification, declared the provision unconstitutional and of no force and effect.

The Crown appealed a trial judgment staying marijuana cultivation and possession charges against an accused who used marijuana to control severe epilepsy.

The court held that criminally prohibiting possession and cultivation of marijuana for necessary medical use deprived the respondent of liberty and security of the person, and that the deprivation did not accord with the principles of fundamental justice because the statutory scheme provided only illusory or unfettered access to lawful medical use.

The court found the ministerial exemption power in s. 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act constitutionally insufficient to save the blanket prohibition.

The trial stay was upheld, but the reading-in remedy was set aside and the possession prohibition in s. 4 was declared invalid, with the declaration suspended for one year and a personal exemption granted during the suspension.