Eric V. Gottardi

In this criminal appeal, the accused challenged a perjury conviction arising from testimony given at an inquest following a conducted-energy-weapon incident at an airport.

The accused argued unreasonable verdict, misapprehension of evidence, issue estoppel, and abuse of process, including the Crown’s pursuit of an alleged collusion theory.

The Court held that no reviewable factual error or misapprehension was established and upheld the conviction substantially for the provincial appellate reasons.

A dissenting justice would have ordered a new trial on the basis that the collusion finding was unreasonable and tainted other findings.

The accused appealed his perjury conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge misapprehended evidence.

A majority of the Court dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons given by the majority in the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

A dissenting judge would have ordered a new trial for substantially the reasons of the dissent below.

The conviction was upheld.

During pre-trial proceedings involving allegations of abuse of process related to police handling of solicitor-client privileged communications intercepted under Part VI wiretap authorizations, the court had ordered production of privileged materials for judicial review under the McClure framework.

The Crown sought a judicial stay rather than comply with the order, asserting that compliance would require disclosure of solicitor-client privileged communications between police and Crown counsel.

The defence agreed to the requested remedy.

Considering the public interest in preserving solicitor-client privilege and the lengthy procedural history of the case, the court exercised its discretion to terminate the prosecution by entering a judicial stay of proceedings.

The applicants brought a pre-trial motion seeking a stay of proceedings for abuse of process, alleging widespread police misconduct in the execution of wiretap authorizations, particularly regarding the interception of privileged solicitor-client communications.

During the motion, police witnesses testified about their handling of intercepted communications, prompting the applicants to seek disclosure of the legal advice the police received from Crown counsel.

The Crown asserted solicitor-client privilege over the advice.

The court held that while the individual officers did not waive privilege, the applicants met the threshold to pierce the privilege under the 'innocence at stake' exception as adapted for an abuse of process motion.

The court ordered a stage-two in-camera review of the privileged communications to determine if they should be disclosed to the defence.

During pre‑trial proceedings, the accused advanced a Charter challenge alleging a breach of s. 8 arising from an alleged unreasonable search and seizure.

The court addressed issues relating to production of third‑party banking records held by a financial institution.

To facilitate the ongoing motion, the court clarified the scope of a subpoena duces tecum issued to a bank employee and specified categories of internal bank materials to be produced, including anti‑money laundering manuals, online instructions to branches, and training materials relevant to the relevant time period.

The endorsement was issued to ensure production of the documentation necessary for the continuation of the pre‑trial Charter application.

The accused was convicted of four offences relating to the sexual abuse of a child and uttering a threat.

The trial judge re-opened the trial to hear fresh alibi evidence but ultimately confirmed the convictions.

The Court of Appeal set aside the convictions on the basis that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient to explain how he resolved contradictions in the complainant's evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, finding that the trial judge's reasons, read as a whole, were functionally sufficient and explained the basis for the verdict.

The appellants appealed their extradition committals, arguing that section 32(1)(b) of the Extradition Act infringed section 7 of the Charter because it did not require evidence to be certified as available for trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeals and remitted the matters to the extradition judges to be determined in accordance with the concurrent decision in United States of America v. Ferras, which upheld the constitutionality of the provisions.

The appellants were convicted of drug-related offences based in part on wiretap evidence obtained under s. 184.2 of the Criminal Code.

At trial, they challenged the admissibility of the wiretap evidence under s. 8 of the Charter and sought leave to cross-examine the police officer who swore the affidavit in support of the authorization.

The trial judge, applying the Garofoli threshold test, denied leave to cross-examine and admitted the evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the Garofoli leave requirement remains constitutional and that the trial judge did not err in finding no reasonable likelihood that cross-examination would elicit evidence of probative value.