Charles Stephen White

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order for extradition to the United States on charges including grand theft auto, vehicular homicide, and manslaughter while driving under the influence.

The applicant argued the Minister's decision was unreasonable, contravening s. 7 of the Charter due to concerns about racial discrimination and a failure to consider delaying extradition for health reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding the Minister's decision reasonable and entitled to deference.

The court affirmed the Minister's conclusions that the applicant failed to establish racial persecution and that necessary medical care would be available in the United States.

This is an application by the appellant to reopen his appeal, which was previously dismissed as abandoned due to his failure to surrender into custody as required by his bail release order.

The appellant had been convicted of drug-related offences, including possession for the purpose of trafficking, and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario denied the application, finding that the appellant's explanation for his failure to surrender was problematic, his grounds of appeal were not strong, the Crown would be prejudiced by the disposal of evidence, and the principle of finality weighed against reopening the appeal.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, applied for bail.

The Crown's case relied on strong circumstantial evidence, including cell phone records and surveillance video, suggesting the accused lured the victim to a meeting where he was shot by a co-accused.

The court found the accused met the onus on the primary ground but failed on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record, and the proposed sureties, including his mother in whose home loaded handguns were found, were deemed incapable of supervising him.

The court also held that releasing the accused would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail application was dismissed.

The accused, T.A.E., brought an application to exclude evidence (crack cocaine and money) seized from her home under a search warrant, alleging a violation of her s. 8 Charter rights.

The application challenged the warrant's validity, primarily through a Garofoli application, and the statutory basis for seeking a telewarrant.

The court applied the Debot criteria (credibility of informant, compelling nature of information, and police corroboration) to assess the warrant's sufficiency, considering redacted information and a judicial summary.

The court found the warrant valid and the telewarrant properly obtained, concluding no Charter violation occurred.

Consequently, the evidence was admissible, and T.A.E. was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.