Jeffrey G. Johnston

The applicants sought a temporary stay of a Sending Order issued under section 15(1) of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, requesting the imposition of terms and conditions to protect trade secrets and intellectual property.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate a serious question to be tried or irreparable harm.

The court reiterated that the Act is a complete code for mutual legal assistance proceedings and that the existing treaty provides sufficient protection, thus precluding additional submissions to the Minister of Justice for further conditions.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision upholding a sending order under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

The applicants argued that because a British Columbia court of coordinate jurisdiction had denied a similar sending order involving the same parties and investigation, the Ontario court should be bound by principles of res judicata and issue estoppel.

The motion judge dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and rejecting the res judicata and issue estoppel arguments on their merits.

The applicants sought to re-open the issue of the validity of a search warrant and rescind a Sending Order issued under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

This application was based on new evidence from a related British Columbia proceeding where a similar search warrant, based on the same Request to Send from Belgium, was set aside due to deficiencies in the supporting affidavit.

The Ontario court dismissed the application, finding that the affidavit supporting the Ontario search warrant was materially different and did not suffer from the same deficiencies as the British Columbia affidavit.

The court also disagreed with the British Columbia court's ultimate finding regarding the sufficiency of the Request to Send to establish reasonable and probable grounds in the context of an MLAT proceeding, emphasizing the spirit of international cooperation.

The applicants sought to re-open the issue of the validity of a search warrant and rescind a Sending Order made under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

They relied on fresh evidence that a related search warrant in British Columbia, based on the same Request to Send from Belgium, had been set aside due to a misleading police affidavit.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Ontario police affidavit did not suffer from the same deficiencies as the British Columbia affidavit and that the Request to Send provided sufficient reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence had been committed under Belgian law.

An appeal concerning the interpretation of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

The respondent was convicted in the United States of conspiracy and fraud, sentenced to 30 years imprisonment, and ordered to pay a $26 million USD forfeiture money judgment.

American authorities discovered $9.2 million CAD in a Canadian bank account believed to belong to the respondent and obtained a restraint order.

The respondent appealed the motion judge's decision upholding the restraint order, arguing the funds were not proceeds of crime or offence-related property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that "proceeds of crime" should be interpreted broadly in the context of mutual legal assistance to respect differences in foreign legal systems and to fulfill Canada's international treaty obligations.

The applicant, an American citizen facing charges of sexual assault of a minor in Wisconsin, sought judicial interim release pending extradition proceedings.

The court found that the reverse onus applied as the applicant was not ordinarily resident in Canada.

The proposed surety was deemed inadequate due to a lack of understanding of the charges, an unrealistic supervision plan, and an inability to post a sufficient bond.

Given the applicant's history of fleeing jurisdiction and the serious nature of the charges, the court concluded that detention was necessary on the primary grounds to ensure his attendance in court.

Bail was denied.

On appeal from a Superior Court decision granting a sending order under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MLACMA) to send seized evidence to Belgium.

The appellants sought to include terms and conditions in the sending order to restrict disclosure of commercially sensitive information about cyclotron design and manufacture to a state-owned competitor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the sending judge did not err in refusing to impose such restrictions.

The court found that the Treaty between Canada and Belgium, combined with MLACMA, adequately protects against improper use and disclosure through the Minister's supervisory role and the Treaty's restrictions on use and disclosure.

The applicant sought a sending order under s. 15(1) of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to send business records seized from the respondents to the Kingdom of Belgium for a criminal fraud investigation.

The respondents opposed the order, arguing the seized materials contained trade secrets and that the Belgian investigation was a bad faith attempt to gain a competitive advantage.

The court granted the sending order, finding the search warrant was lawfully executed and there was no evidence of bad faith.

The court noted that concerns regarding intellectual property were addressed by the treaty's restrictions on unauthorized disclosure and were matters for the Minister of Justice, not the court.