Julian N. Falconer

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of s. 810.1 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the child-protection recognizance regime created a status offence, was overbroad, and was impermissibly vague, and further challenged the availability of arrest and detention procedures in such proceedings.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 810.1 is preventive, not punitive, and is directed at assessing present risk of future harm to children rather than punishing status.

The court found the regime sufficiently tailored and procedurally safeguarded, upheld the reading down of 'shall' to 'may' in s. 810.1(2), and confirmed that ss. 507(4) and 515 apply to s. 810.1 proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered after the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge improperly allowed the Crown to reopen its case and then amend the indictment in a child sexual offence prosecution.

The majority held that once the defence had begun to answer the case by disclosing an intended alibi, the discretion to reopen was severely restricted and could be exercised only in the narrowest circumstances.

Reopening to correct the complainant's mother's evidence about the year of the alleged offences effectively changed the case the accused had committed to meet and indirectly violated the principle against self-incrimination.

The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal on the remaining count stood.

The appellant was involved in two motor vehicle accidents, the second resulting in a fatality.

At the hospital, blood and urine samples were taken for medical purposes with the appellant's consent.

A coroner subsequently seized the samples under the Coroners Act and turned them over to the police for analysis.

The results were used to convict the appellant of impaired driving causing death and other offences.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the police's appropriation of the samples constituted an unreasonable seizure violating s. 8 of the Charter, the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) because the samples existed independently of the breach, the authorities acted in good faith, and the evidence would have been discovered anyway.

The appeal was dismissed.

The corporate appellants, retail businesses, and their employees sought declarations that the Ontario Retail Business Holidays Act was unconstitutional, alleging it infringed freedom of religion and equality rights under the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellants lacked standing.

The Court found that while there was a serious issue as to the Act's validity and the appellants were directly affected, there were other reasonable and effective ways to bring the issue before the court, as evidenced by their reliance on the evidentiary record of another case.

The Court also held that the appellants could not claim their own religious rights were violated without specific factual evidence.