Robert W. Hubbard

Zachary Barton was convicted by a jury of firearms-related offences.

Police found a semi-automatic handgun during a warrantless search in a common hallway planter, and later ammunition and a bullet-proof vest during a warranted search of his apartment.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in concluding the handgun was not obtained in a manner that infringed his Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the handgun was unconstitutionally obtained due to its causal, contextual, and temporal links to the unlawful police conduct.

As the trial judge had not fully determined the validity of the search warrant after excising the unconstitutionally obtained evidence, the Court of Appeal set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial on all charges.

The Crown applied for an order to retain seized material for an additional year in a complex criminal investigation involving Fortress Real Capital Inc. and related entities.

The investigation, initiated in 2018, concerned allegations of investor fraud through misrepresentation of property values and investment eligibility.

The court granted the application, finding the investigation to be complex due to the large volume of electronic and hard copy material, the need for professional assistance (computer experts, accountants), and significant delays caused by extensive solicitor-client privilege claims over seized documents.

The court emphasized that while asserting privilege is legitimate, it contributed to the complexity and delay, justifying further detention of the material until June 22, 2021.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) sought to unseal the remaining redacted portions (approximately 25%) of an Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant related to an RCMP investigation into alleged investor fraud by Fortress Real Capital Inc. and associated entities.

The Crown resisted, arguing that further disclosure would compromise the ongoing investigation and prejudice innocent third parties.

The court, applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, found that the Crown had justified the redactions, citing a serious and specific risk to the integrity of the investigation due to undisclosed law enforcement techniques and the potential for specific financial harm to an innocent person.

The court also noted the ongoing nature of the investigation and the large volume of unanalyzed seized material as factors supporting continued redaction of other third parties' identities.

The application for further unsealing was dismissed.

Three appellants were convicted of first degree murder, attempted murder, and committing those offences for the benefit of a criminal organization arising from a drive-by shooting in Toronto.

The Crown's case relied heavily on testimony from two gang members who testified the appellants confessed to the shooting.

The appellants challenged numerous aspects of the trial including jury selection procedures, joinder of counts, admission of bad character evidence, ballistics evidence, jury instructions on Vetrovec witnesses, and alleged Charter violations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of Atkins and Riley but allowed Wisdom's appeal, finding the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of an attempted theft four months after the shooting, which had minimal probative value but significant prejudicial effect.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his application to re-open a sending order made under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MLACMA).

The application judge had treated the application as a Wilson application and dismissed it, finding no material non-disclosure in the original ex parte proceedings.

The Court of Appeal held that it had no jurisdiction under s. 35 of the MLACMA to hear an appeal from a Wilson order, as such an order is made pursuant to the court's inherent jurisdiction, not under the Act.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed the eye-witness identification evidence.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in principle by finding the appellant was a danger to the community, as the record showed he had been rehabilitated in the four years since the offence.

Given the appellant's six years on bail without incident and the time already served, the sentence was reduced to time served plus 18 months' probation.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting his wife.

At trial, both parties testified to engaging in dominant/submissive sexual role playing, but gave conflicting accounts of the night in question.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, finding the complainant more credible.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by approaching the case as a credibility contest, making key findings of fact on a balance of probabilities, and failing to consider whether the evidence as a whole raised a reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The accused brought a pre‑trial motion seeking particulars requiring the Crown to specify the alleged misrepresentations, fraudulent conduct, and false accounting entries underlying charges relating to financial reporting of a public corporation.

The motion relied on s. 587 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the indictment lacked sufficient detail for the preparation of a defence.

The court reviewed the extensive investigations, disclosure, and related regulatory proceedings already known to the accused and concluded that they were aware of the case they had to meet.

The court held that the areas of dispute were sufficiently delineated and that further particulars were unnecessary for trial fairness or evidentiary rulings.

The application for particulars was dismissed.

The media applied to unseal search warrant materials related to a murder investigation.

The application judge ordered partial unsealing.

Both an accused (Gardiner) and the media appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Gardiner's appeal, finding no error in the partial release.

The Court also dismissed the media's appeal, noting that while the application judge's reasons were inadequate for appellate review, remitting the matter would interfere with a publication ban already imposed by the trial judge.

The Crown appealed a decision quashing a search warrant and assistance order that required the National Post to produce a forged document and envelope received from a confidential source.

The reviewing judge had found the warrant violated s. 2(b) of the Charter and the items were protected by journalist-confidential source privilege.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no jurisdictional error in proceeding ex parte, and holding that the fourth Wigmore criterion was not met because the law enforcement interest in investigating a serious crime (forgery) outweighed the benefit of protecting the confidential source.

The appellant, a Canadian businessman, was investigated by the RCMP for money laundering.

RCMP officers conducted searches of the appellant's investment company office in the Turks and Caicos Islands under the authority of the local police.

At trial, the appellant sought to exclude documentary evidence obtained during the searches, arguing that the searches violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Charter does not generally apply to searches and seizures conducted by Canadian officials in foreign jurisdictions, as this would interfere with the territorial sovereignty of the foreign state.

The evidence was admissible as its admission did not render the trial unfair.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder, applied under s. 680(1) of the Criminal Code for a review of his detention order.

The court found no realistic likelihood that a panel would interfere with the lower court's decision, particularly regarding the tertiary ground for detention under s. 515(10)(c).

The court noted the strong circumstantial case, including motive, opportunity, and gunshot residue, as well as the egregious circumstances of the planned killing.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a youth charged with drug possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Police officers conducted a random, warrantless search of a high school using a sniffer dog, which reacted to the youth's unattended backpack in the gymnasium.

The police searched the backpack and found marijuana and psilocybin.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the dog sniff and subsequent physical search violated the youth's section 8 Charter rights, as students have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their backpacks and the search was not authorized by law or conducted reasonably.

The court affirmed the exclusion of the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, which had set aside his acquittal on a charge of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that there was sufficient material before the Justice of the Peace to support the issuance of the search warrant.

The appellant and a co-accused were convicted of trafficking in heroin following a joint trial before a judge and jury.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in the jury charge by conflating his defence with that of his co-defendant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge repeatedly instructed the jury to consider each accused separately and that the recharge clarified any potential confusion.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as no submissions were made.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal finding an Internet lottery scheme unlawful under the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal from the bench, adopting the reasons of the Chief Justice of Prince Edward Island.

The appellant was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of his mother, aunt, and cousin.

At trial, he denied involvement, but his counsel advanced a defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder.

The Crown called reply evidence from psychiatrists who had assessed the appellant under court order.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the constitutionality of the psychiatric assessment provisions, the jury instructions on the sequence of considering the NCR defence, the Crown's closing address, and the admission of evidence from a warrantless police entry into his apartment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the constitutional challenge could not be raised for the first time on appeal due to a tactical decision at trial, the jury instructions did not constitute reversible error, and the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances.

The appellant, a former psychotherapist, appealed his convictions for historical sexual offences against five female patients.

At trial, the appellant argued that the sexual acts were either consensual, part of bona fide therapy, or occurred outside the therapeutic relationship.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge fundamentally erred in his jury instructions on consent by conflating medical 'informed consent' with criminal consent and failing to properly put the defence's theory to the jury.

The Court also held that the trial judge erred in admitting hearsay evidence from a prior disciplinary hearing under the principled exception, as the necessity and reliability criteria were not met.

The respondent was convicted of possessing instruments adapted and intended to be used to commit forgery under s. 369(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge instructed the jury that 'adapted' meant 'suitable for'.

The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, finding the word ambiguous and interpreting it in favour of the accused to mean 'altered or modified'.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the French version of the statute clearly resolves any ambiguity, confirming that 'adapted' in s. 369(b) means 'suitable for'.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of an application for certiorari seeking to quash a search warrant.

The court held that the reviewing judge properly applied the governing certiorari standard, which asks whether there was evidence upon which the justice of the peace could issue the warrant rather than reweighing the information.

Any alleged non-disclosure regarding an informant's antecedents would not have affected issuance, and the remaining information disclosed ample grounds.

The court further held that certiorari is discretionary and found no basis to interfere with the application judge's judicial exercise of discretion.