Kathleen Heap

Both the doctor and the College brought applications under s. 35(9) of the Mental Health Act for an order permitting the disclosure of a patient's psychiatric consultation notes in a discipline hearing.

The discipline proceedings involved allegations of sexual abuse and failure to maintain the standard of practice.

The patient refused to consent to the disclosure.

The court found that the notes were essential to the College's prosecution and to the doctor's ability to make full answer and defence.

The applications were granted, as disclosure was deemed essential in the interests of justice.

Both the doctor and the College brought applications under s. 35(9) of the Mental Health Act for an order permitting the disclosure of a patient's psychiatric consultation notes in a discipline hearing.

The discipline proceedings involved allegations of sexual abuse and failure to maintain the standard of practice.

The patient refused to consent to the disclosure.

The court found that the notes were essential to the College's prosecution and to the doctor's ability to make full answer and defence.

The applications were granted, as disclosure was deemed essential in the interests of justice.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and breach of recognizance after police, acting on a confidential informant's tip, stopped a taxi he was in and eventually found crack cocaine in his backpack.

On appeal, the appellant argued his Charter rights under ss. 8 and 9 were breached during the traffic stop, pat-down search, and the search of his backpack at the police station.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the traffic stop was a lawful investigative detention, the pat-down was a valid safety search, and the backpack search was a lawful search incident to arrest because police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for drug offences prior to the search.

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80.

At trial, the appellant argued that his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter was violated when police failed to facilitate his request to speak to a lawyer and continued to question him about his alcohol consumption.

The trial judge dismissed the Charter application and convicted the appellant, rejecting his bolus drinking defence based partly on his statements to police.

On appeal, the Superior Court found that the police breached s. 10(b) by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel and by eliciting evidence.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the appellant's statements under s. 24(2) and ordered a new trial.

The appellants were arrested in an undercover drug trafficking operation and experienced a delay of nearly two and a half years before trial.

They applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, which was dismissed by the application judge.

On appeal, the appellants argued the judge erred in allocating periods of delay and failing to penalize the Crown for tactical decisions.

The Court of Appeal adjusted the delay calculations but found the total delay still fell within the Morin guidelines.

The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.