C. John Hooker

The accused was charged with importing cocaine.

Shortly before trial, the Crown disclosed evidence from two alleged accomplices.

The trial judge excluded the evidence under s. 24(1) of the Charter due to late disclosure.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that exclusion of evidence under s. 24(1) is only appropriate where late disclosure renders the trial process unfair and cannot be remedied by an adjournment and disclosure order, or where exclusion is necessary to maintain the integrity of the justice system.

The appellant, who grew marijuana for medical purposes, was charged with unlawfully producing cannabis and elected to be tried by a judge and jury.

At trial, the judge directed the jury to return a guilty verdict and told them they were bound to abide by his direction.

The jury returned a guilty verdict, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge deprived the appellant of his constitutional right to a trial by jury under s. 11(f) of the Charter by usurping the jury's function.

The Court further held that the curative proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code could not apply because there was, in effect, no jury trial at all.

A new trial was ordered.