A.D. Gold

D.C., convicted of rape in California, sought an order exempting him from or terminating his obligations under Canada's Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA).

He argued that the California offence was not "equivalent to" Canadian sexual assault due to differences in mens rea, and that the Minister's equivalency determination should be based solely on statutory elements, not the underlying conduct.

He also contended that the impact of SOIRA registration on his life was grossly disproportionate and sought to reduce his reporting period from 20 to 10 years.

The court dismissed all applications, ruling that the determination of equivalency must consider the factual circumstances of the foreign conviction, which in D.C.'s case met the standard for sexual assault in Canada.

The court found that the impact of SOIRA was not grossly disproportionate, noting D.C.'s voluntary resignation from employment, and confirmed that the 20-year reporting period was appropriate as sexual assault is deemed an indictable offence under Canadian law.

The appellant was convicted of refusing to provide a breath sample.

He appealed, arguing his s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached when police failed to make reasonable efforts to contact his counsel of choice and compelled him to provide a breath sample without clearly advising him of time limits or options to find other private counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the police failed to adequately carry out their implementational duties under s. 10(b) by not checking the lawyer's website for an after-hours number and by not properly informing the appellant of his options.

The conviction was quashed and an acquittal entered.

The Crown sought a warrant to obtain bodily substances for forensic DNA analysis from the respondent pursuant to Section 487.05(1) of the Criminal Code.

The respondent was charged with break and enter of a dwelling house and mischief by wilful damage.

The Crown's evidence consisted of a DNA profile obtained from a half-consumed can of Fruitopia found at the crime scene, which had been matched to the respondent through the National DNA Data Bank.

The respondent argued that there was insufficient evidence that he was a party to the offence and that it was not in the best interests of justice to issue the warrant given the Crown already possessed the original DNA match.

The court granted the DNA warrant, finding reasonable grounds to believe the respondent was a party to the offence based on the inference that the beverage can was introduced to the secured property during the break-in period.