D.D. Graham Reynolds Q.C.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application to quash an order that he stand trial on offences under the Excise Tax Act.

He argued that the joint representation of himself and his co-accused wife by the same counsel at the preliminary inquiry created a conflict of interest that breached the principles of natural justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest at the preliminary inquiry stage or that his counsel's representation was compromised in a way that deprived him of a fair hearing.

The applicants applied to re-open an appeal previously decided by the Court of Appeal, arguing that the court was misled by false evidence regarding the status of a police informant.

The Crown conceded that newly disclosed evidence contradicted the evidence relied upon in the original appeal, which had determined the individual was a police informer rather than a police agent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that while there is inherent jurisdiction to set aside a judgment based on fraud or newly discovered evidence, the proper forum to seek such relief is the court of first instance (the Superior Court), not the appellate court.