Dean D. Paquette

The accused were investigated by the CRA for tax evasion and fraud after a referral from the RCMP.

The trial judge found that the CRA auditor was conducting a criminal investigation from the outset, violating section 8 of the Charter by using regulatory inspection powers.

The trial judge quashed the search warrants, excluded the evidence under section 24(2), and awarded costs to the accused.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the acquittals and ordering a new trial.

The majority held that the auditor's inquiries did not violate section 8, as their predominant purpose was not the determination of penal liability, making that evidence admissible.

The Court unanimously set aside the costs award, finding no exceptional circumstances or Crown misconduct.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for uttering threats against a child welfare worker and others.

At trial, the appellant denied the encounter and presented an alibi defence, which the trial judge rejected, applying the W.(D.) framework.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility, rejection of the alibi, or application of the standard of proof.

The court also upheld the sentence of 60 days' imprisonment followed by two years' probation, finding that the trial judge appropriately considered the appellant's Aboriginal status and the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The Crown appealed a youth court decision that struck down provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) requiring a young person convicted of a presumptive offence to prove that a youth sentence is sufficient and to justify maintaining a publication ban.

The youth had pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the onus provisions violate section 7 of the Charter by presuming adult treatment and reversing the burden of proof for aggravating sentencing factors.

The Court also upheld the youth sentence imposed but quashed the trial judge's order requiring the Crown to pay the youth's costs for the Charter application.

The Canadian Foundation for Children Youth and the Law brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal involving a young person.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted the motion, subject to conditions including that the moving party take the record as it exists, file a factum of no more than 20 pages, and make oral argument of no more than 30 minutes.

The moving party was also permitted to reference the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international treaties ratified by Canada.

The Crown appealed an order quashing a conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit following a single-vehicle accident.

The Court of Appeal held that under s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code, the officer need only reasonably suspect that a person operating or in care or control of a vehicle has alcohol in the body; the suspicion need not separately extend to operation or care and control.

The court further held that the trial judge was entitled on the evidence to find that the respondent had not relinquished care and control of the vehicle when the roadside screening demand was made.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and the conviction and sentence restored.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed for widespread internet distribution of child pornography.

The sentencing judge had imposed a 90-day custodial term, substantially below the range he identified, primarily to avoid disrupting the respondent's academic progress.

Fresh evidence established that the sentencing judge had been materially misled about the respondent's university enrolment, academic achievements, and standing.

The Court of Appeal held there was no basis to depart from the 12- to 15-month range identified at first instance and varied the sentence to 12 months, crediting time already served.

The Crown sought leave to appeal from a summary conviction appeal decision that had granted a Charter application and awarded $5,000 in costs after an unsuccessful firearm storage prosecution.

The Court of Appeal held that the summary conviction appeal court had jurisdiction because a Charter claim had been raised and either determined or left undecided at trial, engaging the appeal right under s. 830(1) of the Criminal Code.

However, the court found no evidentiary basis for concluding that the Crown's conduct in proceeding to trial was egregious, oppressive, or high-handed so as to constitute a breach of s. 7 or justify a remedy under s. 24(1).

The court also held that the record could not support an award of costs under s. 809(1), and set aside the costs order.