John MacFarlane

The court addressed a constitutional challenge to section 14 of the Security of Information Act, which criminalizes the unauthorized communication of special operational information by persons permanently bound to secrecy.

The challenge argued that the term "without authority" was unconstitutionally vague, violating section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the term was not vague when interpreted in its statutory context, particularly for the specific class of individuals to whom it applies.

It clarified that "without authority" pertains to the actus reus of the offence, meaning the power or right to act, derived from one's official position or a superior's grant of authority.

The offender, a high-ranking civilian member of the RCMP, was convicted of communicating special operational information to targets of international investigations, breach of trust, and unauthorized use of a computer.

The Crown sought 22 to 25 years' imprisonment, while the defence sought a sentence of time served (seven years).

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the offender's extreme breach of trust and the potential risk to undercover operations, but also considered his historically good character and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The court imposed a total sentence of 14 years' imprisonment, reduced by 2400 days of pre-trial custody credit, leaving 7 years and 155 days to serve.

The accused, Cameron Ortis, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 38.14 of the Canada Evidence Act, arguing that non-disclosure of highly classified information by the Crown compromised his right to a fair trial and full answer and defence.

The court dismissed counts 5 to 8 of the indictment, finding that the prohibited classified information was of immense importance to Ortis's defence regarding the mens rea element of those charges, making the national security interests and fair trial rights irreconcilable.

However, the court denied the stay for counts 1 to 4, 9, and 10, determining that the non-disclosure did not sufficiently impact Ortis's ability to present his defence for those charges.

The applicant, a former high-ranking civilian member of the RCMP charged with serious national security offences under the Security of Information Act, sought a bail review after spending over three years in pre-trial custody.

Following the dismissal of four of the ten charges against him, the court found a material change in circumstances.

The court concluded that the applicant met his onus on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, noting that the passage of time and strict proposed conditions mitigated the risks of flight, reoffending, and loss of public confidence.

The application was granted, and the applicant was released on strict conditions including house arrest and GPS monitoring.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking, brought a second application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The net delay of 37.5 months exceeded the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

The court applied the transitional exception and the Morin framework to assess whether the delay was justified.

Weighing the serious nature of the charges against the prejudice suffered by the applicant, the court found the delay was justified and dismissed the application.

During a criminal trial for trafficking in a substance represented as crack cocaine, the court ruled on two voir dires concerning evidentiary admissibility.

First, the Crown sought to admit police Booking Summary Reports and associated mug shots as business records under s.30(1) of the Canada Evidence Act without calling the identification officer who created them.

The court held that the records were administrative in nature and not caught by the investigative-record exclusion in s.30(10), making the mug shots admissible as reliable business records.

Second, the Crown sought to introduce non‑expert recognition evidence from a police officer who claimed to recognize one accused from surveillance photographs based on a brief prior interaction.

Applying the “prior acquaintance/better position” test from appellate authority, the court concluded the officer lacked sufficient familiarity to provide a reliable basis for recognition and excluded that evidence.