Francis Brabant

The respondent was convicted of trafficking in narcotics based partly on intercepted private communications.

At trial, the judge denied the respondent's motion to examine the affidavits filed in support of the wiretap authorizations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that an accused should be granted access to the sealed packet upon request.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, affirming that the accused is entitled to access the sealed packet to make full answer and defence, subject to editing and special concerns for the administration of justice.

The appellant sought extradition of two Canadian citizens to the United States for transnational heroin offences, although the respondents' personal acts occurred in Canada and could have been prosecuted domestically.

The Court held that extradition prima facie infringes s. 6(1) of the Charter, but that the infringement is justified under s. 1 because extradition serves pressing objectives of international crime suppression and bringing fugitives to justice.

Applying the Oakes framework flexibly, the majority concluded extradition was rationally connected to those objectives and impaired the right as little as reasonably possible in the context of transnational crime.

The appeals were allowed, the Court of Appeal judgments were reversed, and the extradition committals were restored.

The police obtained a defective warrant to search the appellant's house for drugs.

They executed the search using excessive force, breaking down the door with a battering ram without prior warning.

No drugs were found, but weapons were seized.

The trial judge excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter and acquitted the appellant.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal, holding that the search violated s. 8 of the Charter and that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the serious defects in the warrant and the excessive force used.

The accused were convicted at trial of conspiracy to import narcotics and bribery of an officer.

The Court of Appeal allowed their appeals and ordered a stay of proceedings based on the rule against multiple convictions.

The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial convictions, holding that the principles expressed in R. v. Prince regarding the rule against multiple convictions were conclusive.

The accused was charged with obstructing justice and committed after refusing to testify at the preliminary hearing of another accused.

The accused applied for certiorari to set aside the committal, which was dismissed by the Superior Court but allowed by the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the Superior Court's judgment, noting that the judge did not exercise the powers of committal conferred by section 472 of the Criminal Code, rendering the questions raised in the Court of Appeal moot.