C. Walsh

The Crown brought an application to remove the defendant's counsel of record due to a conflict of interest.

The defendant and a co-accused were jointly charged with terrorism-related offences.

The counsel of record had previously represented or consulted with the co-accused, the defendant's family members, and potential witnesses in related matters.

The court found a realistic and significant risk of a future conflict of interest that could impair the counsel's duty of loyalty and effective assistance.

The application was granted, and the counsel was removed from the record.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the 41-month and 19-day delay between his arrest and the jury's verdicts violated his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The court calculated the total delay and deducted periods of defence delay, including time before the scheduling of the preliminary inquiry and time resulting from an abandoned Garofoli application.

The court also found that exceptional circumstances, specifically a lack of judicial resources due to illness and a family death, justified a further 7.5-month deduction.

The net delay fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling, and the application was dismissed.

The accused was found guilty by a jury of two counts of importing cocaine and one count of conspiracy to import firearms.

The accused orchestrated the importation of eight kilograms of cocaine using couriers and conspired to import 40 to 50 handguns from the United States into Canada.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the accused's leadership role, the quantity of drugs and firearms, and a calculated profit motive.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 16 years' imprisonment, reduced to 12 years and 10 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest bail.

The appellant appealed summary conviction findings of guilt for making false or deceptive statements and wilfully evading compliance with reporting provisions under the Customs Act in connection with the importation of a motor vehicle.

The trial judge found that the appellant deliberately structured the shipment of a prohibited kit car into two separate shipments and falsely described the goods as automotive parts in order to circumvent importation rules.

On appeal, the appellant argued errors in the interpretation of the Customs Act and related regulations, improper rejection of tariff classification arguments, and alleged violations of Charter rights.

The appeal court held that the case was not about tariff classification but about knowingly making false declarations to customs officials.

Finding no legal error, misapprehension of evidence, or Charter breach, the court upheld the convictions.