John North

Media organizations appealed orders upholding a mandatory publication ban imposed under s. 517 of the Criminal Code during terrorism-related bail proceedings and interpreting the ban to apply to all jointly charged accused when requested by one accused.

The Court of Appeal held the appeal should be heard despite mootness because the issue was recurring, evasive of review, and remained adversarial.

A majority held that the mandatory ban infringed s. 2(b) of the Charter and was justified under s. 1 only where the charges may be tried by a jury; the provision was therefore read down to that extent.

The interpretation ruling applying the ban to all jointly charged accused was upheld, and no costs were awarded.

The appellant, a criminal defence lawyer who represented himself at trial, appealed his conviction for providing drugs to an inmate at the Don Jail.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding a jail guard suspected of drug trafficking.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence did not undermine the trial judge's critical factual findings, which included the inmate being searched before and after the meeting, an officer observing their hands touching, and the appellant hiding an incriminating envelope.

The court also rejected arguments regarding trial fairness, reasonable apprehension of bias, and the trial judge's handling of a letter received about the appellant.

The appellant, a Canadian businessman, was investigated by the RCMP for money laundering.

RCMP officers conducted searches of the appellant's investment company office in the Turks and Caicos Islands under the authority of the local police.

At trial, the appellant sought to exclude documentary evidence obtained during the searches, arguing that the searches violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Charter does not generally apply to searches and seizures conducted by Canadian officials in foreign jurisdictions, as this would interfere with the territorial sovereignty of the foreign state.

The evidence was admissible as its admission did not render the trial unfair.

The Crown appealed a disposition for a breach of a conditional sentence order where the judge imposed an intermittent sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that an intermittent sentence under section 732 of the Criminal Code is not an available option for a breach of a conditional sentence under section 742.6(9).

The term 'intermittent' was deleted from the disposition.

The appellant appealed his convictions for producing marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking, arguing that the search warrant for his residence was invalid because it relied on an anonymous tip that only expressed a suspicion of criminal activity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that while the tip itself was not compelling, the police officer's independent observations of heavy blinds, condensation, and a vent provided sufficient grounds for the warrant.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal based on fresh psychiatric evidence showing the appellant's severe depression and fragility.

The six-month custodial sentence was varied to an 18-month conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed a criminal conviction.

The Crown conceded that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal agreed, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and entered an acquittal.

The appellants were stopped for speeding on a highway.

The police officers, suspecting the appellants were drug couriers based on neutral indicators, detained them and requested to search their rental car without advising them of their right to counsel.

After the passenger withdrew his initial consent, the officers searched the trunk and found 22 pounds of marijuana.

The Court of Appeal held that the police breached the appellants' rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The majority concluded that the breaches were serious and that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s. 24(2).

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and acquittals were entered.

The appellant was convicted of importing cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial.

During cross-examination, the Crown questioned the appellant about his association with two individuals who had been convicted of drug importing, despite no evidence linking them to the appellant's charges.

The trial judge failed to caution the jury against drawing an adverse inference of guilt by association.

The Court of Appeal held that the improper cross-examination and lack of a limiting instruction resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed, convictions quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for selling cocaine to an undercover officer, arguing the verdict was unreasonable due to frailties in the identification evidence.

The officer identified the appellant from a photo array eight months after the transaction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was alive to the frailties of identification evidence and reasonably concluded the photo array was fair and the officer's identification was reliable.

The appellants were convicted of conspiracy to traffic in cannabis resin following a reverse sting operation in which the RCMP offered to sell them a large quantity of hashish.

The appellants sought a stay of proceedings, arguing the police conduct was illegal and constituted an abuse of process.

They also sought disclosure of legal advice the RCMP received from the Department of Justice, which the Crown claimed supported the police's good faith belief in the operation's legality.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the police are not immune from criminal liability and that their conduct in offering to sell narcotics was illegal.

Furthermore, by asserting good faith reliance on the legal advice, the RCMP waived solicitor-client privilege.

The Court ordered disclosure of the relevant legal advice and directed a new trial limited to the issue of whether a stay of proceedings should be granted.

The appellant was a trespasser growing marijuana in abandoned fields.

The police seized the plants pursuant to a warrant issued after receiving a tip.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the fields, applying R. v. Edwards and R. v. Belnavis.

Consequently, it was unnecessary to consider section 24(2) of the Charter, and arguments under sections 7 and 11(d) were also rejected.