Edward L. Greenspan

The applicant applied for bail pending his appeal of an order committing him for extradition to the United States on charges relating to child pornography and child luring.

The court found that the applicant was not a flight risk and that the public interest alone did not justify his continued detention.

However, the application for bail was dismissed because the applicant failed to raise an arguable ground of appeal from his committal order.

The court found the evidence was sufficient for committal and that subscriber information obtained without a warrant would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder in the shooting death of his estranged wife.

On appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred in admitting gunshot residue (GSR) evidence found on his hands and clothing, claiming it was obtained following an unlawful arrest and arbitrary detention in violation of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

He also argued the GSR evidence's prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value, and that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the use of his post-arrest statements to police.

The Court of Appeal found that while the arrest was unlawful and the detention arbitrary, the GSR evidence was properly admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court also found no error in the admission of the GSR evidence on a probative value/prejudicial effect analysis, and concluded the jury instructions regarding the appellant's statements did not prejudice him.

The appeal was dismissed.

The United States sought the appellant's extradition for arson, fraud, and firearm offences.

At the committal hearing, the appellant sought to introduce evidence challenging the credibility of two accomplices whose anticipated evidence was summarized in the record of the case.

The extradition judge refused to admit the evidence and committed the appellant for surrender.

The Minister of Justice subsequently ordered the appellant's surrender.

The appellant appealed the committal order and applied for judicial review of the surrender order, arguing that the potential sentence in the United States was grossly disproportionate to a comparable Canadian sentence, violating s. 7 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the application, finding that the proffered evidence would not have rendered the record of the case manifestly unreliable, and that the potential sentence disparity would not shock the conscience.

The appellant was convicted of fraud over $5,000 for his participation in a $4 million mortgage scheme and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and $250,000 in restitution.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by conducting his own handwriting analysis, failing to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter following unlawful arrest and search, and imposing an unfit sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the Grant framework to admit the evidence, reasonably assessed the handwriting, and correctly held that conditional sentences are inappropriate for large-scale fraud.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in his blood exceeded 80 mg per 100 ml of blood contrary to section 253(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded by way of a blended voir dire on Charter issues.

The Crown's evidence established grounds for the traffic stop, roadside demand, and breath demand.

The defendant's expert evidence raised reasonable doubts regarding the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000C results, particularly concerning an ambient fail that occurred during testing and potential interfering substances in the breath room.

The court found that the defendant successfully rebutted the presumption of accuracy and entered an acquittal.

The plaintiff successfully sued the defendant for defamation and obtained an injunction prohibiting the defendant from communicating about him.

The defendant breached the injunction by communicating with a Member of Parliament, claiming it was an act of conscience, and was found in civil contempt.

The court sentenced the defendant to a 90-day conditional sentence with house arrest, followed by 18 months' probation and 200 hours of community service, finding that jail was not necessary.

The defendant was also ordered to pay substantial indemnity costs of $24,377.41.

The appellants, high-stakes gamblers who lost approximately $2.1 million playing roulette, sued the casino operators and the provincial gaming regulator.

They alleged that the casino's practice of removing a 'floating ball' from the roulette wheel and calling a 'no-spin' was an unapproved rule of play, rendering the games illegal under the Criminal Code and entitling them to the return of their losses via unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the floating ball practice was not a rule of play requiring regulatory approval, as it did not impact the fairness or integrity of the game.

Furthermore, even if the games were illegal, the casino operators had a juristic reason for enrichment based on their reasonable reliance on the legality of the games, and the regulator owed no private duty of care to the gamblers.

The applicants, members of the Brooks family and their associated racing stables, brought a motion to quash or stay an Order of Immediate Suspension and a Notice of Proposed Order issued by the Ontario Racing Commission.

The applicants alleged that the Administration's investigation and proceedings constituted an abuse of process due to delay and failure to provide adequate disclosure and particulars.

The Panel dismissed the motion, finding that the Administration had fulfilled its disclosure obligations in a timely manner given the volume and complexity of the investigation, and that adequate particulars had been provided.

The Panel found no abuse of process and directed that the matter proceed expeditiously to a hearing on the merits.

The appellant was convicted of drug-related offences based on evidence obtained through wiretap authorizations.

On appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred in refusing leave to cross-examine the affiant of the supportive affidavits, that he was improperly named as a 'known' person in the authorizations, and that the authorizations required live monitoring at all locations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had abandoned his application to cross-examine the affiant at trial, that the standard for naming a 'known' person under s. 185(1)(e) of the Criminal Code was met, and that the live monitoring requirement was properly restricted to specific locations.

The accused applied for a review of a detention order under section 520 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with instructing a criminal organization and drug trafficking offences, with the Crown's case relying heavily on evidence obtained from an encrypted mobile device.

The reviewing judge found the Justice of the Peace committed errors in principle by making logically inconsistent findings between the primary and secondary grounds, and by failing to adequately consider the impact of a section 8 Charter argument on the strength of the Crown's case.

Furthermore, late disclosure revealing that police searched the device without a warrant and failed to obtain an extension for its detention constituted a material change in circumstances.

The detention order was vacated and the accused was released on strict conditions with substantial sureties.

The Republic of Poland sought the extradition of the applicant for fraud-related offences.

The applicant applied for a stay of proceedings, alleging abuse of process on the basis that Canada had previously attempted a 'disguised extradition' through deportation proceedings at Poland's behest, and that the Attorney General of Canada had engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by improperly withholding relevant documents.

The court found that the deportation proceedings were indeed a disguised extradition initiated solely to appease Poland, and that the Attorney General's defiance of a production order constituted an abuse of process.

A stay of proceedings was granted.

The applicant, having been convicted of fraud and having had his conviction appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal, applied for bail pending his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The court found that while the applicant would surrender into custody and his leave application was assumed not to be frivolous, his detention was necessary in the public interest.

The court held that at this stage of the proceedings, the principle of enforceability of the sentence takes precedence over the principle of reviewability, especially given the tenuous nature of a leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The application for bail was dismissed.

The appellants, former executives of Livent, appealed their convictions and sentences for large-scale commercial frauds involving the falsification of financial statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding that the trial judge's reasons were adequate, the verdicts were reasonable, and the trial judge properly assessed the credibility of unsavoury accomplice witnesses.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeals, reducing the penitentiary terms because the Crown failed to prove the actual amount of financial loss or that the company's bankruptcy was caused solely by the fraud.

The appellant appealed a 14-year sentence imposed following guilty pleas to a series of violent offences against eight victims.

The sentence was based on a joint submission.

The appellant argued the sentence was harsh and excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant's lengthy criminal record, the viciousness of the assaults, attempts to obstruct justice, and the fact that the trial judge was bound to accept the joint submission unless it was contrary to the public interest.

The court found the sentence fit.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting three complainants and administering a stupefying drug to one of them.

The complainants alleged they felt ill after drinking wine provided by the appellant.

At trial, the Crown relied on expert evidence that GHB was found in one of the wine bottles.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh expert evidence showing that GHB occurs naturally in all red wine, including the specific brand and vintage seized.

The Court of Appeal applied the Palmer test and admitted the fresh evidence, finding it could reasonably be expected to have affected the jury's assessment of the complainants' credibility.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The respondent sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's failure to respond to further submissions regarding an extradition surrender order.

The respondent argued this failure violated his Charter rights and sought an interim stay of the surrender order.

The Minister moved to quash the application, arguing no judicially reviewable decision had been made.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash and dismissed the application, finding that the Minister had committed to responding to the submissions and was under no statutory obligation to do so within a fixed time frame.

The respondents pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death after driving at excessive speeds and colliding with a taxi, killing the driver.

At a pre-trial conference, the Crown undertook not to appeal if conditional sentences were imposed.

The trial judge imposed conditional sentences of two years less a day with house arrest for the first year, plus a four-year driving prohibition.

The Attorney General appealed the sentences.

The Court of Appeal held that the Crown's undertaking did not bar the Attorney General's statutory right to appeal and did not constitute an abuse of process.

While the trial judge did not err in principle in imposing conditional sentences, the sentences were demonstrably unfit as they lacked sufficient punitive conditions to address denunciation and general deterrence.

The Court allowed the appeal, extending the house arrest to the full term of the sentences and increasing the driving prohibitions to seven years.

The appellant pharmacist appealed a penalty imposed by the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists, which prohibited him from having a proprietary interest in a pharmacy or working at a family member's pharmacy for three years.

The appellant had pleaded guilty to 19 counts of misconduct related to fraudulent billing and falsifying records.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty was justified for public protection given the sustained level of dishonesty and ongoing attempts to conceal it.

The applicant, a dual citizen of Canada and Germany, sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision refusing to accept further submissions regarding a 2004 surrender order for his extradition to Germany to face fiscal offences.

The applicant argued the Minister failed to consider his discretion to refuse extradition of a Canadian national under the extradition treaty, alleged bias, and claimed a lack of adequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the former Minister had implicitly considered and rejected the reciprocity arguments, there was no evidence of bias, and the reasons provided were adequate.

The appellant, Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc., was successful on appeal and sought partial indemnity costs for both the initial motion and the appeal from the respondents, Conrad M. Black and Barbara Amiel-Black.

The respondents argued that intervenors generally do not receive costs and that the amounts claimed were excessive.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellant $18,000 in partial indemnity costs for the appeal, finding the claimed amount excessive given the appellant's familiarity with the issues.

The court declined to award costs for the initial motion, as the motion judge made no costs order and the appellant had not sought such costs in its notice of appeal.