B. Crothers

The Crown applied for certiorari and mandamus to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's decision discharging the accused on a charge of first degree murder and committing him only for second degree murder.

The accused was alleged to have committed a drive-by shooting.

The reviewing judge found that the preliminary inquiry judge committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider the whole of the circumstantial evidence, which was reasonably capable of supporting an inference of planning and deliberation.

The application was granted, and the matter was remitted with a direction to commit the accused to stand trial for first degree murder.

The Crown applied under section 521 of the Criminal Code to reverse a bail review decision that released the accused on a surety bail with conditions.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and later with witness intimidation and kidnapping after the complainant was found chained to a bed.

The original bail judge detained the accused on secondary and tertiary grounds, finding him un-releasable regardless of the bail plan.

The reviewing judge subsequently released the accused, finding a material change in circumstances based on a new supervision plan.

The Superior Court held that the reviewing judge erred in law because the original detention was not based on an inadequate plan, but on the accused's ungovernability.

The release order was set aside and the detention order was reinstated.

The accused brought an application under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude a loaded handgun and other items seized during the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The warrant was based on information from a confidential informant.

The accused sought leave to cross-examine the affiant and challenged the sufficiency of the redacted Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court dismissed the application to cross-examine the affiant, finding it would not assist in determining if the warrant could have issued.

The court held that the judicial summary provided sufficient information for the accused to make full answer and defence.

Ultimately, the court found no s. 8 breach, as the informant's tip was compelling, credible, and corroborated, providing reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

In the alternative, the court held the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2).

The offender was sentenced after being convicted at trial of introducing counterfeit currency into Canada and possessing counterfeit money.

She was discovered at an international airport carrying 1,990 counterfeit US $100 bills concealed in luggage after returning from Peru.

The court emphasized the seriousness of large-scale counterfeit currency offences and the importance of denunciation and general deterrence, particularly where the counterfeit bills were of high quality and the offence involved planning and cross-border importation.

Although the offender was a first offender, acted as a courier, and had difficult personal circumstances including sole support of three children, these mitigating factors did not outweigh the gravity of the offence.

A custodial sentence of 15 months' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, was imposed.

The accused was charged with unlawfully possessing counterfeit money and introducing it into Canada after returning from Peru with a suitcase containing $199,000 in counterfeit U.S. currency.

The accused claimed she thought she was smuggling stolen or drug money, not counterfeit money, and argued she lacked the requisite knowledge.

The court rejected her exculpatory evidence as implausible and found that the circumstantial evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that she had actual knowledge of the counterfeit nature of the currency.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.