George D. Finlayson

The respondent challenged the constitutionality of the Criminal Code DNA warrant provisions authorizing seizure of bodily substances for forensic analysis.

The Court of Appeal held that the challenge was properly resolved under s. 8 of the Charter, and that if the regime satisfied s. 8 scrutiny it could not be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 on the self-incrimination theory advanced.

The court found the statutory scheme contained substantial judicial and privacy safeguards, upheld the ex parte warrant structure, and rejected the lower court's attempt to read in a notice requirement.

Fresh evidence concerning updated DNA technology undermined the basis for striking down the hair-sample provision, which was reinstated.

The cross-appeal was dismissed and the declaratory application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an application for certiorari seeking to quash a committal for trial on a charge of second degree murder.

The court held that the committing judge correctly instructed himself on the limited function of a preliminary inquiry judge under governing Supreme Court authorities.

Relying on authorities confirming that a preliminary inquiry judge is not to assess witness credibility, the court found no jurisdictional error.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant challenged a power of sale transfer of farm property on the basis that the mortgagee had failed to comply with the notice regime and stay provisions under the Farm Debt Review Act.

The court held that even assuming a later notice of sale served during the statutory stay was a nullity, an earlier amended notice of sale was not void merely because the creditor had not first given compliant notice under s. 22.

Applying prior authority, the court found the defect was a continuing breach and not fatal where the farmer became aware of the statutory protections, obtained the full stays available, and suffered no prejudice.

The court further held that a valid basis for the exercise of the power of sale could sustain the transfer even though the registered documents referred to a defective notice.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.