Kenneth S. Westlake

The appeal considered whether the confessions rule applies to accused statements used only on a Charter voir dire, whether police had exigent circumstances under s. 11(7) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for a warrantless home entry, and whether seized evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2).

The majority held the confessions rule does not govern this voir dire use, found the warrantless entry violated s. 8 because obtaining a warrant was practicable, and excluded the resulting evidence.

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

The appellant Crown challenged a declaration that the emergency wiretap power in s. 184.4 of the Criminal Code violated section 8 of the Charter.

The Court held that warrantless interception in exigent circumstances can be constitutionally permissible where strict urgency conditions are met.

However, the provision lacked an adequate accountability mechanism, particularly after-the-fact notice to affected persons, and therefore failed constitutional minimum standards.

The infringement was not justified under section 1 because a notice requirement would not impair emergency police action while materially protecting privacy rights.

The appeal was dismissed and invalidity was suspended for 12 months to permit legislative revision.

The appellants were convicted of drug-related offences based in part on wiretap evidence obtained under s. 184.2 of the Criminal Code.

At trial, they challenged the admissibility of the wiretap evidence under s. 8 of the Charter and sought leave to cross-examine the police officer who swore the affidavit in support of the authorization.

The trial judge, applying the Garofoli threshold test, denied leave to cross-examine and admitted the evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the Garofoli leave requirement remains constitutional and that the trial judge did not err in finding no reasonable likelihood that cross-examination would elicit evidence of probative value.

The Crown obtained an ex parte order for a judicial investigative hearing under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code in relation to the Air India bombings.

The application judge ordered the hearing to be held in camera and kept secret.

A newspaper reporter discovered the proceedings and sought access.

The hearing judge dismissed the application for access.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the newspaper's appeal in part, holding that the open court principle applies to s. 83.28 hearings.

While the initial ex parte application was properly held in camera, the existence of the order and the constitutional challenge should have been public.

The investigative hearing itself must be presumptively open, subject to the Dagenais/Mentuck test for publication bans or in camera orders.

The Crown sought an ex parte order under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code to compel a Named Person to attend a judicial investigative hearing and answer questions regarding the Air India bombings.

The Named Person challenged the constitutionality of s. 83.28, arguing it violated the right against self-incrimination under s. 7 of the Charter and compromised judicial independence.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the provision, finding it procedural in nature, thus applicable retrospectively.

The Court held that s. 83.28 includes adequate safeguards, such as derivative use immunity, which must be extended to extradition and deportation hearings to comply with s. 7.

The Court also found that the provision does not compromise judicial independence, as judges retain their role in protecting the witness's constitutional rights.

The appellant was involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident and taken to a hospital.

While unconscious, a doctor took a blood sample for medical purposes despite the appellant's prior refusal.

The police subsequently obtained the blood alcohol test results from the doctor without a warrant.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the doctors were not acting as agents of the state, the police conduct in obtaining the medical information without a warrant violated the appellant's rights under section 8 of the Charter.

The Court excluded the evidence under section 24(2), allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial on the criminal negligence charges.

The appellant was convicted of drug trafficking after selling marijuana to an undercover police officer.

The meeting was arranged by a friend of the appellant who was acting as a police informant in exchange for consideration on his own pending charges.

The appellant argued he was entrapped into committing the offence due to persistent phone calls and pressure from his friend.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the police acted on reasonable suspicion and merely provided an opportunity to commit the offence, without employing tactics that would induce an average person to commit the crime.

The appellants were convicted of rape and indecent assault after engaging in sexual acts with a prostitute.

At trial, they argued that the complainant consented or, alternatively, that they held an honest but mistaken belief in her consent.

The trial judge left the defence of mistake of fact to the jury but instructed them that the belief must be supported by reasonable grounds.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the defence was properly left to the jury due to an 'air of reality' in the evidence, the trial judge erred in law by requiring reasonable grounds for the honest belief.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was charged with conspiracy to import cocaine.

At trial, wiretap evidence was excluded because the police failed to disclose to the authorizing judge that a concurrent income tax investigation was ongoing and that information would be shared with tax authorities.

The trial judge acquitted the appellant, but the Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the existence of the tax investigation was irrelevant to the validity of the wiretap authorizations for the drug investigation.