Frank Addario

The appellant appealed his convictions on numerous weapons charges, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding the conduct of a search was not unreasonable under the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the dissenting reasons in the Court of Appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed against conviction and sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge erred in sentencing on the most aggravating factual basis when the jury's verdict was supportable on any one of three factual bases and was not particularized.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to depart from the established law regarding sentencing.

Criminal appeals arising from convictions for conspiracy to traffic in controlled substances where a substantial part of the Crown's case rested on intercepted private communications.

The central issue was whether the trial judge over-edited affidavits supporting wiretap authorizations, thereby preventing an effective Wilson review and depriving the appellants of their Charter right to make full answer and defence.

The majority held that full disclosure is the governing premise, subject only to narrow public-interest exceptions, and that the deletions improperly withheld material that could have been used to challenge the validity of the authorizations.

The Court allowed the appeals, quashed the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant was convicted of unlawfully exposing goods on a municipal road allowance without lawful authority after selling T-shirts on a street corner.

The municipality had delegated licensing authority to the city, which only permitted owners or occupiers of abutting property to apply for a licence.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal, holding that the by-law was ultra vires the municipality because it was not specifically authorized by the provincial enabling legislation.

The Court found that the by-law's broad prohibition on exposing articles on sidewalks was not authorized by provisions relating to retail sales, public nuisances, or highway obstructions.

The appellant was involved in a fight where a bystander was injured by a glass fragment from a bottle allegedly thrown by the appellant.

The appellant was charged with unlawfully causing bodily harm under s. 269 of the Criminal Code.

Prior to trial, the trial judge quashed the indictment, finding that s. 269 violated s. 7 of the Charter because it could include absolute liability offences.

The Court of Appeal overturned this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 269 requires an underlying offence with a constitutionally sufficient mental element and objective foresight of bodily harm, thereby satisfying the requirements of fundamental justice.

The appellant, a young offender, appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which had allowed the Crown's appeal from a stay of proceedings ordered by the trial judge due to delay.

The Supreme Court of Canada applied the framework from R. v. Morin and considered the societal interest in proceeding expeditiously with charges under the Young Offenders Act.

The Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that there was no unreasonable delay in this case and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault based in part on wiretap evidence.

The trial judge admitted the evidence without opening the sealed packet.

The Court of Appeal opened and edited the packet but denied the appellant the right to cross-examine the affiant.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the appellant had established a basis to cross-examine the affiant because the affidavit was misleading regarding the use of a police informant, which bore directly on whether other investigative procedures were unlikely to succeed.

The appellant, a young offender, challenged the constitutionality of Ontario's alternative measures program, arguing its admission criteria violated sections 15(1) and 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal as moot, relying on a concurrent judgment which held that section 4 of the Young Offenders Act does not oblige provinces to implement such programs.

The appellant conceded that if the programs are a matter of provincial option, no remedy is available.