Barry A. Fox

The accused were jointly tried for fraud over $5,000 arising from a scheme using a stolen and forged TD bank draft to obtain approximately $1.9 million in gold bullion from a Montreal dealer.

The Crown’s case was largely circumstantial and relied on telephone records, cell tower data, and evidence concerning the acquisition and subsequent disposition of Perth Mint gold bars.

The trial judge assessed the evidence under the principles governing circumstantial cases and the framework in R. v. W. (D.).

The court rejected the explanations advanced by the accused and concluded that they had acted together to present the fraudulent draft, obtain the gold, and distribute or conceal it afterward.

The applicants, charged with defrauding a bank of over $1.8 million, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The total time from charge to trial was approximately four years.

The court applied the Morin framework and found that while the 22 months of institutional delay exceeded the administrative guidelines, the delay was not unreasonable given the complexity of the case, the involvement of multiple accused, and the significant delay caused by the actions of the co-accused.

The court also found no meaningful prejudice arising from the delay itself.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for stunt driving and 'over 80'.

He argued that the trial judge erred in dismissing his Charter applications regarding the right to privacy (video surveillance in cells), right to counsel, right to know the reason for detention, and the validity of the roadside breath demand.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge erred in applying different privacy standards to men and women in cells, but correctly refused to order a stay of proceedings.

The court also found that the trial judge erred in finding a section 8 breach regarding the roadside demand, as the demanding officer was entitled to rely on the reasonable suspicion of another officer.

The court conducted its own section 24(2) analysis for a section 9 breach (failure to advise of reasons for detention) and concluded the breath samples should not be excluded.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, sought for extradition to the United States on drug trafficking charges, applied for further disclosure of communications between Canadian and American authorities regarding efforts to locate her.

She argued that the requesting state lied about its efforts to find her and that the seven-year pre-extradition delay constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the application, finding no air of reality to the claims of prejudice from delay or deliberate deception by the requesting state that would justify ordering disclosure at the committal stage.