Brian H. Greenspan

The Crown sought forfeiture of two properties under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following the discovery of sophisticated marijuana grow operations.

The first property, a former Molson Brewery plant in Barrie, contained two large indoor grow operations operated by individuals convicted of production and trafficking offences.

The second property was a residential dwelling in Phelpston owned by a company controlled by the respondent's brother.

The Crown alleged that the property owners and their corporations were complicit in or colluded with the drug offences.

The respondents argued they were innocent third parties unaware of the illegal activities occurring on their properties.

In a criminal trial involving multiple allegations of sexual assault by an anesthesiologist against sedated patients during surgery, the court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility and scope of defence expert evidence concerning the effects of psychotropic drugs on perception and memory.

Applying the framework from R. v. Mohan and R. v. Abbey, the court assessed relevance, necessity, absence of exclusionary rules, and proper qualification, followed by a cost‑benefit analysis of probative value versus prejudice.

The court held that three defence experts—including two anesthesiologists and a psychiatrist—met the threshold admissibility requirements.

Although limitations existed regarding aspects of their expertise, those limitations affected weight rather than admissibility.

The experts’ testimony was admitted subject to general limits preventing opinions outside their expertise, including speculation about surgical practices or motives for the alleged offences.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences against his nieces and great-niece.

The trial judge had stated that allegations of sexual misconduct made against a family member are inherently more credible than those against a non-family member due to the explosive nature of such complaints.

The Court of Appeal held that this analytical framework was improper and constituted a reversible error.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a committal for extradition to the Republic of Korea for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, and sought judicial review of the Minister's surrender order.

The appellant argued the record of the case lacked sufficient basis for committal and contained inconsistencies and translation issues.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the will-say statements provided sufficient evidence of fraudulent transactions to support committal.

The application for judicial review was also dismissed, as the Minister was not required to seek assurances that the appellant would be tried only on particularized allegations.

The Crown appealed from the respondent's acquittal on a charge of counselling the commission of murder.

The respondent, a victim of severe spousal abuse, had attempted to hire a hit man to kill her husband.

The trial judge acquitted on the basis of the common law defence of duress.

The Supreme Court held that duress requires compulsion to commit a specific offence and is not available where threats were not made for the purpose of compelling the commission of an offence.

However, given the uncertainty in the law, the Crown's change of position between trial and appeal, and the exceptional circumstances, a stay of proceedings was entered rather than ordering a new trial.

Fish J. dissented in part, favouring a new trial over a stay.

The appellant was convicted of first-degree and second-degree murder.

He appealed, arguing that the Crown's closing address was improper, that opinion and hearsay evidence from a police agent was wrongly admitted, and that the Crown's theory of motive was based on speculation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's addendum to the jury charge effectively cured any defects in the Crown's closing address, the police agent's evidence was necessary narrative, and the Crown's theory of motive was based on proper inferences from the evidence.

The appellant, a youth at the time of his initial involvement, was convicted of participating in a terrorist group after attending training camps and committing acts such as shoplifting and removing a surveillance camera.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, erred in admitting his post-arrest statement despite Charter breaches, improperly admitted hearsay evidence under the co-conspirators' exception, and failed to stay proceedings for abuse of process and entrapment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual conclusions were supported by the record, the Charter breaches did not warrant exclusion of the statement under s. 24(2), the hearsay evidence was properly admitted, and the police conduct did not amount to entrapment or an abuse of process.

The applicants, Fercan Developments Inc. and GRVN Group Inc., challenged the constitutional validity of sections 16 and 19 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which permit courts to order forfeiture of offence-related property.

The applicants raised three constitutional questions: whether the forfeiture provisions were ultra vires Parliament as relating to property and civil rights; whether they violated section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 by conferring jurisdiction on provincial courts; and whether they violated the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The court upheld the constitutional validity of all challenged provisions, finding that forfeiture is a valid exercise of Parliament's criminal law power, that the Ontario Court of Justice may constitutionally exercise forfeiture jurisdiction, and that procedural safeguards meet Bill of Rights requirements.

The applicant, charged with attempted murder and various firearm offences, sought release on bail pending trial.

The applicant allegedly shot the complainant in the neck, resulting in paralysis, while on bail for previous gun and drug charges.

The court found that while detention was not justified on the primary ground, it was justified on the secondary ground due to the strong Crown case and the applicant's previous breach of bail conditions.

The court also found detention justified on the tertiary ground to maintain confidence in the administration of justice given the gravity of the offence and the circumstances.

The bail review application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference involving a minor student.

He argued that the trial judge unfairly and illogically rejected the alibi evidence provided by his wife, which would have exonerated him.

The Court of Appeal found that there was a solid evidentiary basis for the trial judge's adverse credibility findings regarding the wife, noting her history of deceit and bizarre behaviour.

The court concluded that the trial judge did not subject the evidence to an unreasonably high standard of scrutiny and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder and theft under $5,000 after stabbing his father at least 50 times.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 15 years.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge's rolled up instruction to the jury was deficient and that the 15-year parole ineligibility period was harsh and excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury charge exemplary and thorough in instructing the jury to consider all evidence regarding the appellant's state of mind.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly considered the appellant's character, lack of remorse, and the extreme brutality of the offence in determining the period of parole ineligibility.

The applicant corporation brought an application concerning a restraint order affecting property.

It was uncontested that neither the corporation nor its sole shareholder, officer, and director had been charged with any criminal offence related to the restraint order or the property.

The respondent did not dispute these facts and there was no cross‑examination on the supporting affidavit.

The court issued a supplementary endorsement confirming that these uncontested facts informed the earlier decision dismissing the application.

The applicant sought to vary an ex parte restraint order under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to allow the sale of a property that had been used as a commercial marijuana grow operation.

The applicant wanted to use the sale proceeds to pay out a first mortgage held by a credit union before remitting the balance to the Attorney General.

The Attorney General opposed the payout, arguing that the mortgagee's innocence had not been established and should be determined at a forfeiture hearing.

The court dismissed the application, finding that it would be premature to allow the payout before a full hearing under s. 20 of the CDSA.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of indecent assault following a judge-alone trial.

During the trial, the judge convened an in-chambers conference with counsel, excluding the appellant, where the judge commented negatively on the appellant's testimony and encouraged a plea resolution.

On appeal, the court found that the appellant's right to be present during the whole of his trial under s. 650(1) of the Criminal Code was violated, as the discussion affected his vital interests.

The court declined to apply the curative proviso, holding that the trial judge's comments compromised the appearance of judicial impartiality.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the Republic of Korea, sought an order for the committal for extradition of the respondent for offences corresponding to conspiracy to commit fraud and fraud.

The respondent allegedly defrauded the Korean government of approximately $12 million CAD by illegally obtaining compensation for redeemed land.

The respondent argued the Record of the Case was manifestly unreliable due to translation errors and inconsistencies.

The court found sufficient available and reliable evidence on every essential element of the offences to justify committal and ordered the respondent's committal for extradition.

The accused brought a pre‑trial motion seeking particulars requiring the Crown to specify the alleged misrepresentations, fraudulent conduct, and false accounting entries underlying charges relating to financial reporting of a public corporation.

The motion relied on s. 587 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the indictment lacked sufficient detail for the preparation of a defence.

The court reviewed the extensive investigations, disclosure, and related regulatory proceedings already known to the accused and concluded that they were aware of the case they had to meet.

The court held that the areas of dispute were sufficiently delineated and that further particulars were unnecessary for trial fairness or evidentiary rulings.

The application for particulars was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to possessing prohibited firearms and ammunition after police discovered the weapons during a search warrant execution related to their tobacco business.

The accused had purchased the firearms for protection after receiving serious threats.

The Crown proceeded summarily and sought a one-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought a suspended sentence or intermittent custody based on the accused's exemplary backgrounds and extensive community service.

The court imposed a 60-day intermittent sentence for each accused, followed by 18 months of probation requiring 240 hours of community service, balancing the need for denunciation with the offenders' significant moral credit for past good deeds.

The appellant mother was convicted of child abduction under s. 282(1)(a) of the Criminal Code after taking her two children to Singapore for seven months, depriving the father of his court-ordered access.

The trial judge imposed a 12-month conditional sentence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge made no errors in concluding the mother intended to deprive the father of access.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal and substituted an absolute discharge, noting the hardship a criminal record would cause the appellant's professional travel and the fact she had already served her conditional sentence.

The appellants, former executives of Livent, appealed their convictions and sentences for large-scale commercial frauds involving the falsification of financial statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding that the trial judge's reasons were adequate, the verdicts were reasonable, and the trial judge properly assessed the credibility of unsavoury accomplice witnesses.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeals, reducing the penitentiary terms because the Crown failed to prove the actual amount of financial loss or that the company's bankruptcy was caused solely by the fraud.

The appellant challenged convictions for multiple historical sexual offences against several boys, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, applied uneven scrutiny to Crown and defence witnesses, relied on material not in evidence, and thereby rendered the trial unfair.

The court held that any errors were minor, not material to the reasoning process, and did not undermine trial fairness or the convictions.

The court also rejected challenges to the dismissal of stay applications based on destroyed police records and alleged abuse of process arising from the earlier investigation.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the five-year global sentence was upheld as fit notwithstanding one conceded sentencing error.

The court further ordered sex offender registration under SOIRA.