D.D. Graham Reynolds

The appellant appealed an order sending seized materials to U.S. authorities pursuant to the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

The appellant argued the search warrant was invalid because the supporting affidavit relied entirely on unsworn hearsay from a U.S. request without independent police investigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the detailed factual allegations in the formal treaty request provided sufficient reliable evidence for the authorizing judge to issue the warrant.

The court also found the application judge's brief reasons, which adopted the respondent's factum, were adequate and did not deprive the appellant of meaningful appellate review.

The appellant appealed her committal for surrender and applied for judicial review of the Minister's surrender order.

She challenged the constitutionality of the new Extradition Act, which the Court of Appeal dismissed based on its previous decision in United States of America v. Yang.

She also argued that the surrender would be unfair and oppressive and that the Minister's reasons were inadequate.

The Court found no substance to her allegations and held that the Minister's reasons were adequate.

The appeal and application for judicial review were dismissed.

The appellant appealed her conviction for unlawfully importing a controlled substance.

The Crown conceded that the cross-examination of the appellant at trial was improper and impaired her right to a fair trial.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction for importing a controlled substance, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant abandoned her appeals regarding other charges to which she had pleaded guilty.

The appellant appealed his convictions for trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of a prohibited weapon.

During deliberations, the jury requested a playback of a specific portion of the appellant's testimony.

The trial judge refused the request, expressing confusion and instructing the jury to continue discussing.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by failing to respond directly to the jury's question and denying them a review of evidence central to the appellant's credibility.

The convictions for the cocaine offences were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to import cocaine.

On appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred during the jury selection process by failing to adequately instruct the triers on the challenge for cause process and by interfering with his peremptory challenge rights.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the triers were not instructed on the standard of proof or the need for unanimity.

Furthermore, the trial judge's failure to pre-screen prospective jurors for personal hardship forced counsel to waste peremptory challenges.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The respondents openly sold direct-to-home satellite systems with access cards that could decode United States satellite programming signals.

The police obtained and executed search warrants at the respondents' business premises, seizing extensive inventory and records.

The respondents successfully applied to quash the warrants and for the return of the seized property.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge properly heard the application rather than deferring to the trial court, correctly concluded that the affiant failed to make full, frank, and fair disclosure, and correctly determined that the alleged offence under s. 9(1)(c) of the Radiocommunication Act was not an offence known to law due to statutory ambiguity regarding foreign signals.

The Crown appealed a forfeiture order made during sentencing for conspiracy to traffic in a narcotic.

The trial judge ordered that out of $100,000 in seized proceeds of crime, $40,000 be paid to Legal Aid Ontario and $12,000 to defence counsel, with the remaining $48,000 forfeited.

The Crown argued this bestowed a financial benefit on the respondents by reducing their indebtedness to Legal Aid.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge had discretion under the Criminal Code to make the order and did not misapprehend the facts or proceed on an erroneous principle.

The appellant appealed his jury conviction for importing heroin after he and his wife were found carrying 9.9 kilograms of heroin on arrival from Pakistan.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge’s refusal to permit a Parks challenge for cause under s. 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code was reversible error requiring a new trial.

The court rejected the argument that the verdicts were inconsistent, holding that the duress defence required an individualized assessment of the co-accuseds' personal characteristics and circumstances, including whether each had an obvious safe avenue of escape.

The court declined to determine the improper cross-examination ground because no acquittal was available and a retrial was already required.