Claude Bélanger

The accused were convicted at trial of conspiracy to import narcotics and bribery of an officer.

The Court of Appeal allowed their appeals and ordered a stay of proceedings based on the rule against multiple convictions.

The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial convictions, holding that the principles expressed in R. v. Prince regarding the rule against multiple convictions were conclusive.

The appellants appealed from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal which allowed the Crown's appeals from their acquittals for possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking and ordered new trials.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in law by treating the Oliver case as establishing binding standards for substance analysis and by finding reasonable doubt after previously indicating satisfaction with the proof.

The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to traffic and trafficking in PCP.

He appealed on the grounds that the trial judge erred in not declaring a mistrial after the Crown referred to alleged prior acts, in not deleting references to his criminal past from wiretap recordings, and that the wiretap authorization was invalid due to an overly broad 'basket clause'.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's instructions to the jury cured any prejudice from the Crown's comments or the recordings.

Furthermore, the Court held that the invalid 'basket clause' in the wiretap authorization could be severed from the valid portions, rendering the intercepted communications admissible.