Marc Rosenberg

The appellant was charged with narcotics trafficking and proceeds of crime offences.

The trial was conducted intermittently over eight months.

The trial judge convicted the appellant of trafficking but acquitted him of the proceeds charges, noting the sporadic trial was unsatisfactory but declining to declare a mistrial to avoid hardship to the accused.

The Court of Appeal overturned the acquittals, finding the trial judge should have declared a mistrial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part, holding that the trial judge did not err in refusing a mistrial and restoring the acquittals on the specific proceeds counts.

However, a new trial was ordered on the global proceeds count because the trial judge failed to consider whether the Crown had proven that at least some of the money was from trafficking.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his application to quash an order committing him to stand trial for unlawful confinement.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a judge presiding at a preliminary inquiry does not have jurisdiction to decide whether a provision of the Criminal Code violates the Charter.

The Court also found there was some evidence upon which the appellant could be committed for trial.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal setting aside his acquittal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that even assuming there was an unreasonable seizure of blood samples, the subsequent analysis was conducted under a valid search warrant.

Therefore, the admission of the evidence at trial would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant was convicted of using a forged document after signing his wife's name on a joint cheque and cashing it.

At trial, his wife testified for the Crown, denying she gave him authority.

At the time, the spouses were separated without any reasonable possibility of reconciliation.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the common law rule making a spouse an incompetent witness for the prosecution should be changed to allow spouses who are irreconcilably separated to testify.

The Court found that the traditional policy justifications for the rule, such as preserving marital harmony, do not apply when the marriage has irrevocably broken down, and that the rule is inconsistent with Charter values respecting individual choice and equality.

The appellant was convicted of conspiring to import a narcotic based largely on intercepted private communications.

The trial judge refused to open the sealed packets containing the affidavits supporting the wiretap authorizations.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that an accused is entitled to access the sealed packet, subject to editing to protect informants, to make full answer and defence.

The Court established that a trial judge may review the authorization to determine if it complies with s. 8 of the Charter, and if unlawful, the evidence must be excluded under s. 178.16 of the Criminal Code.

The Court also held that the accused may cross-examine the affiant with leave of the trial judge if necessary to make full answer and defence.

A new trial was ordered because the appellant was denied the right to cross-examine.