Edward L. Greenspan Q.C.

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 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 applicant sought bail pending the determination of his judicial review of the Minister of Justice's refusal to reconsider a surrender order in extradition proceedings.

The Crown opposed bail, arguing the judicial review was frivolous and citing the public interest in enforcing the surrender order after seven and a half years of delay, and alternatively sought to expedite the hearing.

The court granted bail, finding the judicial review raised new issues and the applicant's detention was not necessary in the public interest.

However, the court also granted the Crown's motion to expedite the judicial review hearing to mitigate prejudice to the extradition partner.

The appellant was convicted of sexual offences against a five-year-old child.

At trial, he relied on an alibi defence supported by an independent witness.

The Crown cross-examined the witness on her reliability, suggesting a document she claimed to have delivered to the Crown was never received.

Post-trial, the Crown discovered the document had indeed been received.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal without addressing this new evidence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the undisclosed evidence met the test for a new trial as it could have impacted the trial judge's credibility findings.

The respondent was convicted at trial of threatening his wife and possessing a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace following a domestic dispute over property.

The summary conviction appeal judge quashed the convictions, finding them unreasonable.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the convictions, holding that the summary conviction appeal judge erred in law by substituting his own view of the evidence.

The trial judge's findings that the respondent uttered a threat and formed the unlawful purpose to use his pocket knife as a weapon prior to its use were supported by the evidence and not unreasonable.