Ian Bell

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging that the Crown’s late disclosure of a police report undermined his ability to make full answer and defence on a Charter application challenging his detention and arrest.

The report confirmed that police had previously identified the accused as a person of interest before the arrest.

The court held that the nondisclosure was inadvertent, not deliberate, and merely corroborated testimony already given by a police witness.

Applying the principles governing stays under s. 24(1) of the Charter, the court found no abuse of process and determined that alternative remedies, including further cross‑examination, remained available to the defence.

The extraordinary remedy of a stay was therefore not warranted.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of trafficking in cocaine involving five transactions between October 2010 and April 2011.

The Crown sought a sentence of 30 months imprisonment, while defence counsel sought a conditional sentence of two years less one day.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day to be served in the community with stringent conditions including house arrest, 240 hours of community service, and a three-year probation period.

The court found that while trafficking in cocaine is a serious offence requiring deterrence and denunciation, the defendant's exceptional personal circumstances, strong family and community support, rehabilitative prospects, and the nature of his involvement as an intermediary rather than a major dealer justified a conditional sentence as an exceptional case.

In this criminal appeal concerning terrorism convictions under Part II.1 of the Criminal Code, the appellant challenged the constitutionality of key terrorism provisions, the fairness of the trial after appellate restoration of the motive clause, the reasonableness of the verdicts, and the sentence imposed on appeal.

The Court held that the challenged participation provision was not overbroad under s. 7 and that the legislative scheme did not establish a breach of expressive freedom on the record before it.

It further held that re-insertion of the motive clause caused no trial unfairness, the armed conflict exception did not apply on the evidence, and the convictions were reasonable.

On sentence, the Court affirmed correction of errors in principle and upheld the substituted life term with consecutive terms and extended parole ineligibility.

The appellant was acquitted at trial of income tax evasion after claiming her depression prevented her from filing returns.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred in admitting a doctor's letter as hearsay and relying on it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, agreeing with the appeal judge and further finding that the trial judge erred in law by relying on evidence he had previously ruled inadmissible to support the appellant's credibility.

The defendants were charged with unlawful production of a controlled substance (marijuana) and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following the discovery of a grow operation in their residence.

Police attended the residence in response to a 911 call regarding a shooting in which one defendant was shot in the abdomen.

While conducting what was characterized as a cursory search for additional victims and evidence related to the shooting, officers descended into the basement without a warrant and discovered a marijuana grow operation.

The defence brought a Charter application under section 8 seeking exclusion of the drug evidence on the basis of an unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found that the police had no legal basis to search the basement, that the search was not reasonably incidental to the shooting investigation, and that the conduct constituted a serious breach of Charter rights.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and the defendants were acquitted on both charges.

The accused was charged with trafficking in cocaine, possession of proceeds of crime, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of a prohibited weapon following an undercover drug investigation.

The Crown relied primarily on an undercover officer’s identification of the accused as the seller during a brief drug transaction and on drugs allegedly discovered during a later arrest.

The court held that the identification process was unreliable due to the short observation period, inconsistent descriptions, and suggestive identification circumstances.

The court also found serious inconsistencies in the police evidence concerning the search and alleged discovery of drugs during the arrest.

Given these evidentiary weaknesses, the Crown failed to prove the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.