Daniel Grégoire

The appellant, a police officer, was convicted of obstructing justice under s. 139(2) of the Criminal Code for deliberately failing to gather evidence to lay an impaired driving charge against a fellow officer.

The appellant claimed he was exercising police discretion.

The trial judge rejected this explanation, finding the appellant acted out of favouritism.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while police possess discretion, it must be exercised honestly, transparently, and on valid grounds.

The trial judge's finding that the appellant acted with the specific intent to obstruct justice was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault against a young child who attended a daycare operated by his wife.

The trial judge found the child's declarations reliable and rejected the accused's testimony, finding his explanations to be attempts at justification.

The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction, holding that the trial judge's reasons for rejecting the accused's testimony were insufficient.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the trial judge's reasons, viewed as a whole, adequately demonstrated the rationale behind her findings on credibility and reasonable doubt, and were sufficiently amenable to appellate review.

The respondents, owners of a second-hand store, purchased goods from an undercover police officer who hinted the goods were stolen.

They were charged with laundering proceeds of crime under s. 462.31 of the Criminal Code, specifically for transferring the possession of property.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the French version of s. 462.31, which is narrower than the English version, must be favoured under the rules of bilingual statutory interpretation.

Under the French version, the act of purchasing property does not constitute a 'transfer of possession'.

The Court also clarified that the term 'convert' does not require an intent to conceal.

The appeal by the Crown was dismissed.

The Attorney General of Quebec sought leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Canada from Quebec Superior Court decisions ordering the state to pay defence counsel's fees at rates exceeding legal aid tariffs.

The Supreme Court held that a direct appeal does not lie, as section 676.1 of the Criminal Code provides for an appeal of costs orders to the provincial court of appeal.

The Court interpreted 'costs' broadly to include future payments for legal services.

The applications for leave to appeal were referred to the Quebec Court of Appeal.