Alan Gold

The applicant sought certiorari to quash his committal for trial on charges of fraud, possession of proceeds of crime, and money laundering.

He argued that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction over the transnational fraud and that there was insufficient evidence of the actus reus and mens rea of the offences.

The court dismissed the application, finding a real and substantial link to Canada because the fraudulent scheme used Ontario corporations and bank accounts to receive the proceeds.

The court also found sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could infer the occurrence of fraud, the applicant's knowledge or willful blindness, and his intent to convert or conceal the proceeds.

The accused was tried on multiple counts of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and unsafe storage of a firearm.

Police surveillance and searches of the accused's vehicles and home revealed large quantities of narcotics, including heroin, cocaine, and carfentanil, hidden in a secret vehicle compartment and other containers, along with over $250,000 in cash and a loaded shotgun.

The accused claimed to be a mere delivery person unaware of the narcotics or the firearm.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as fabricated, finding overwhelming circumstantial evidence of his central role in a wholesale trafficking operation.

The accused was found guilty on all counts except three drug possession counts related to untested substances found in his home.

The applicant sought to revisit a decision dismissing his application to vary bail, arguing the court relied on a factual error regarding his brother's address.

The court acknowledged the error but declined to revisit the ruling, finding the error was not material to the outcome.

The original decision was based primarily on the applicant's history of bail violations, the distance from his surety, and the risk of further offences.

The application to revisit was dismissed.

The accused, charged with major drug trafficking offences, applied to vary his strict bail conditions to change his residential surety and permit him to operate a liquidation business.

The court found that while there was a material change in circumstances regarding the current surety, the proposed replacement surety was not equipped to properly supervise the accused.

The court also found no material change of circumstances justifying the accused's return to work, noting that his proposed liquidation business posed an unacceptable risk of re-offending given his history of bail breaches and the nature of the charges.

The application to vary bail was dismissed.

The applicants were found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to murder and first-degree murder.

Prior to sentencing, they applied for a stay of the conspiracy count, arguing that entering convictions for both offences would violate the rule against multiple convictions for the same delict.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the offences lacked both the factual and legal nexus required to engage the rule.

The conspiracy was complete weeks before the murder, and the legal elements of the offences protect different societal interests.

The applicant, sought for extradition to the United States on drug conspiracy charges, brought an application for an order requiring the Attorney General of Canada to obtain and disclose materials in the possession of U.S. authorities regarding their delay in seeking his extradition.

The applicant argued the ten-year delay amounted to an abuse of process violating section 7 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, holding it lacked jurisdiction to order disclosure from foreign authorities at the committal stage.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish an air of reality to the claim that the delay prejudiced the fairness of the extradition hearing itself, as opposed to the trial in the requesting state, which is a matter for the Minister at the surrender stage.

Five police officers were convicted of attempting to obstruct justice, and three of them were also convicted of perjury, arising from a warrantless search of a drug suspect's apartment and subsequent false memo book entries and testimony to conceal the timing of the search.

The Crown sought penitentiary sentences of three to four years, while the defence sought non-custodial sentences.

The court considered the serious breach of trust and the need for denunciation and deterrence, but also weighed significant mitigating factors, including the catastrophic impact of the prolonged 14-year investigation and proceedings on the officers' lives, careers, and health.

The court concluded that a penitentiary term was not warranted and imposed a 45-day conditional sentence (house arrest) for each offender.

The accused, charged with importing cocaine, brought pre-trial motions challenging the admissibility of their statements to police, the lawfulness of a cell phone search incident to arrest, and the validity of a search warrant for a residence.

The court found multiple breaches of the accused's s. 10(b) right to counsel, including delays in facilitating access, eliciting evidence prior to access, and failing to ensure comprehension given language barriers.

The court also held that the warrantless search of the accused's cell phone contents incident to arrest violated s. 8 of the Charter, as cell phones attract a high expectation of privacy requiring prior judicial authorization absent exigent circumstances.

The determination of remedies under s. 24(2) was deferred.