A. Wiese

The applicant, facing serious drug and fraud charges, brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel after being denied Legal Aid.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide comprehensive financial disclosure regarding his personal finances and his business to prove he lacked the means to retain counsel.

Furthermore, the court held that the outstanding fraud charge was not sufficiently complex to require state-funded counsel for a fair trial.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine after arriving at Pearson Airport with eight suitcases containing over 40 kilograms of cocaine concealed in the lining.

The accused testified that her cousin provided the luggage and she was unaware of the drugs, having inspected the bags when she became suspicious but finding nothing.

The court applied the W. (D.) framework and the doctrine of wilful blindness, concluding that the accused took reasonable steps to allay her suspicions and the Crown failed to prove wilful blindness beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

Accused charged with bribery of foreign public officials sought production of investigative records from the World Bank’s Integrity Vice Presidency in support of a Garofoli challenge to wiretap authorizations.

The World Bank asserted immunity as an international organization and refused to produce additional materials.

The court held that by initiating and actively assisting the Canadian criminal investigation, the organization had impliedly waived immunity and must accept the procedural burdens of a criminal prosecution.

The applicants established likely relevance under the first stage of the O’Connor framework.

Production was ordered for certain investigative materials for judicial review.

The applicant, a Bangladeshi citizen residing in Bangladesh, was charged under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act with bribing foreign public officials in relation to a bridge construction project.

He brought an application to prohibit the Crown from proceeding with the charge, arguing that Canada lacked jurisdiction over him as a foreign national whose alleged acts occurred entirely outside Canada.

The Superior Court of Justice held that while Canada had jurisdiction over the offence itself, the Act did not extend jurisdiction over the person of a foreign national acting abroad unless they were physically present in Canada.

The court granted a stay of proceedings against the applicant.

The applicants sought exclusion of wiretap evidence under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the basis that Part VI authorizations were obtained using an unsigned and improperly commissioned affidavit, and allegedly lacked investigative necessity and reasonable grounds.

The court heard viva voce evidence from the affiant officer and the commissioner of oaths regarding irregularities in the affidavit commissioning process.

The court found the deficiencies were mechanical errors made in good faith and concluded the affidavit evidence had nevertheless been sworn and was trustworthy.

Applying the principles governing review of wiretap authorizations, the court held the record demonstrated investigative necessity and reasonable and probable grounds.

The motions to exclude the intercepted communications were dismissed.