Ian M. Carter

The appellant appealed his convictions for criminal negligence causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and aggravated dangerous driving.

He argued that the trial judge erred in applying the modified objective test by failing to account for his state of panic after being chased by assailants, and by improperly using the automatism standard to assess mens rea.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied the modified objective test.

The court held that a reasonable person in the appellant's circumstances would have foreseen the risk, as the imminent peril had passed, and the trial judge did not err in her consideration of the incapacity defence.

The Republic of France sought the extradition of the applicant's common law spouse in connection with a terrorist bombing.

The applicant, who was not a target of the investigation, had her home and office work computers seized pursuant to search warrants issued under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

The application judge made a partial sending order directing that electronic images of the hard drives be sent to France, rejecting the applicant's argument that the search violated her s. 8 Charter rights.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the partial sending order.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding that the applicant's claim to a reasonable expectation of privacy in her personal electronic data on her work computers raised a serious issue of general importance.

The appellant was convicted of extortion and appealed based on a dissent in the Court of Appeal regarding the adequacy of the trial judge's review of the evidence in the jury charge.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's succinct review of the evidence was adequate given the short duration of the trial, the limited number of witnesses, and the full review of evidence by counsel prior to the instruction.

The Court held that the jury instruction conveyed a sufficient understanding of the evidence and how it related to the issues raised by the defence.