E.M. Nordheimer

The applicant sought leave under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code to proceed to a jury hearing to reduce his period of parole ineligibility for a life sentence imposed for first degree murder.

The court applied the post‑2011 threshold under s. 745.61 requiring the applicant to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, a substantial likelihood that a jury would reduce the period of parole ineligibility.

Although the applicant demonstrated positive institutional conduct and program participation during incarceration, psychological assessments raised concerns about his failure to accept full responsibility and refusal to identify accomplices involved in the offence.

Considering the statutory criteria under s. 745.63, including the brutal nature of the murder, victim impact evidence, and lack of genuine accountability, the court concluded that a unanimous jury would not likely grant relief.

The application was dismissed with leave to reapply after five years.

Accused charged with bribery of foreign public officials sought production of investigative records from the World Bank’s Integrity Vice Presidency in support of a Garofoli challenge to wiretap authorizations.

The World Bank asserted immunity as an international organization and refused to produce additional materials.

The court held that by initiating and actively assisting the Canadian criminal investigation, the organization had impliedly waived immunity and must accept the procedural burdens of a criminal prosecution.

The applicants established likely relevance under the first stage of the O’Connor framework.

Production was ordered for certain investigative materials for judicial review.

The applicant brought a Charter application under s. 24(1) seeking to quash search warrants authorizing the search of computers and hard drives allegedly containing child pornography.

The issue was whether leave to cross‑examine the affiant or sub‑affiants on a Garofoli application could be granted based solely on counsel’s submissions or whether some evidentiary foundation was required.

The court held that statements of counsel alone are insufficient; an applicant must point to evidence in the record or other admissible material supporting the alleged factual basis for cross‑examination.

Because the applicant failed to identify such evidence, the court declined to grant leave to cross‑examine the affiant or sub‑affiants at this stage.

A self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a justice of the peace’s refusal to issue process on a privately laid information alleging forcible entry under the Criminal Code.

At the pre‑inquiry hearing, the Crown conceded that there was evidence establishing a prima facie case for each element of the offence.

The justice of the peace nevertheless refused to issue process on the basis that the prosecution was not an appropriate case to proceed.

The Superior Court held that once prima facie evidence exists, s. 507.1(2) of the Criminal Code requires issuance of process unless the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

As no such finding was made, the justice of the peace exceeded jurisdiction and the matter was remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice for process to issue.