Gordon Scott Campbell

The appellants were convicted of multiple mortgage financing frauds involving the manipulation of recent immigrants to obtain mortgage financing and take title to properties.

They appealed their convictions and sentences of four years' imprisonment, fines in lieu of forfeiture, and a joint restitution order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no errors in the trial judge's jury instructions regarding co-conspirators, treatment of evidence, or response to Crown counsel's closing remarks.

The sentence appeals were also dismissed, as the custodial sentences were within the appropriate range for large-scale fraud, and the fines and restitution orders were properly imposed.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order finding him in contempt of court for using his mother as a caregiver for his children instead of the designated daycare provider, and a subsequent order imposing sanctions.

The respondent mother moved to quash the appeal as out of time.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash, extending the time for service.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the contempt and sanction orders, finding that the motion judge erred by making findings of contempt that extended beyond the specific non-monetary breach alleged in the notice of motion.

The applicant sought the release of seized cash under s. 462.34 of the Criminal Code to fund legal expenses in pending criminal proceedings.

Police had seized more than $1 million in cash during a search that also uncovered drugs and other evidence.

The court accepted that the seized funds were available for potential release and that the applicant had established sole entitlement to the money despite arguments about possible competing claims.

However, the applicant failed to demonstrate financial need, as required under s. 462.34, given inconsistencies between his claimed lack of assets and evidence that he possessed substantial unexplained cash and lived in a mortgage-free home.

The application for release of funds for legal fees was therefore denied.

The respondent's fishing vessel was seized for fishing without a licence.

While the vessel was detained, the Federal Court ordered its sale in a separate civil action, and the proceeds were held by the Receiver General.

The respondent was subsequently convicted of Fisheries Act offences, and the sentencing judge ordered forfeiture of $50,000 of the proceeds of the sale.

The Court of Appeal overturned the forfeiture, holding that physical detention of the vessel was a precondition to forfeiture under the Fisheries Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that s. 72(1) of the Fisheries Act authorizes a provincial superior court to order forfeiture of the proceeds of a vessel's sale even when sold under the authority of the Federal Court.

The appellant, a Mi'kmaq Indian, was charged with fishing without a licence, fishing during the close season with illegal nets, and selling eels without a licence.

He argued that the Treaties of 1760-61 granted him a treaty right to catch and sell fish, exempting him from the regulations.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the treaties included an implied right to hunt and fish to obtain necessaries (a moderate livelihood) through trade.

The discretionary licensing system and close season under the federal fisheries regulations infringed this treaty right and were not justified.

The appeal was allowed and acquittals were entered.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal which had found that section 231.4 of the Income Tax Act infringed sections 7 and 8 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, adopting the dissenting reasons of Strayer J.A. in the court below.

The Court held that section 231.4 does not restrict the rights guaranteed by section 7 or section 8 of the Charter, and restored the trial judgment dismissing the constitutional challenge.

The Attorneys General of Alberta, Manitoba, and Prince Edward Island sought declarations validating past decisions of their provincial courts following a Supreme Court judgment finding the judges lacked independence.

The Court held that the doctrine of necessity applied, rendering past decisions valid without the need for declarations.

The Court also suspended the requirement for an independent judicial remuneration process for one year to allow governments time to comply.