Chris Schafer

The appellants were convicted of firearms offences arising from their unlicensed possession of over 200 firearms and ammunition.

The trial judge ordered the mandatory forfeiture of the firearms under s. 491(1)(b) of the Criminal Code but declined to order forfeiture of the ammunition.

On appeal, the appellants argued the forfeiture violated s. 12 of the Charter as cruel and unusual punishment.

The Court of Appeal held that a forfeiture order is a sentence and appealable, but found the mandatory forfeiture was not grossly disproportionate and did not violate s. 12.

The Court also varied the order to include the ammunition, finding the trial judge erred in his interpretation of s. 95(1).

The appellant, a milk farmer, provided unpasteurized milk to individuals through a 'cow share agreement' and was convicted of selling and distributing unpasteurized milk contrary to the Health Protection and Promotion Act and operating an unlicensed milk plant contrary to the Milk Act.

On appeal, he argued the legislation did not apply to his private arrangement and violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the cow-share program was a public marketing scheme caught by the legislation.

The court also held that the prohibition on unpasteurized milk did not violate the right to life, liberty, or security of the person, and was not arbitrary or overbroad given the scientific evidence of public health risks.

The appellants challenged a municipal by-law requiring all new exterior commercial signs to be bilingual in French and English.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that one appellant lacked standing as he did not reside or operate a business in the municipality.

For the second appellant, the Court found the by-law was intra vires the municipality's power to pass by-laws respecting social well-being under the Municipal Act, 2001.

Although the by-law infringed the appellant's freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter by compelling the use of a language, the Court held the infringement was justified under s. 1 as a reasonable limit to protect and promote the equality of the French and English languages.