Leo Adler

The offender pleaded guilty to two historical sexual assault convictions: one committed in 1987 against a woman in her home using a knife as a weapon, and another committed in 1993 against a young woman in a public area.

The offences were discovered through DNA evidence linking the 1987 assault to the 1993 assault in 2003, with the offender finally identified through genealogical investigation in 2023, approximately 30 years after the second assault.

The court imposed an 8-year penitentiary sentence (5 years for the first assault, 3 years consecutive for the second), along with ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA order, firearms prohibition, DNA order, and section 743.21 order.

The court rejected the defence position for a conditional sentence, finding that the gravity of the offences and the offender's degree of responsibility required a significant custodial sentence despite mitigating factors including guilty pleas, remorse, and 30+ years without further criminal conduct.

The defendant, Ronita Lal, was charged with having an excess blood alcohol concentration.

She brought Charter applications (ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), 11(d)) to exclude evidence, specifically the results of a roadside breath screening.

The court found that the police had an implied license and statutory authority to enter private property to investigate.

While a s. 8 Charter violation (unlawful search of the vehicle) and a minimal s. 10(b) Charter violation (brief delay in providing right to counsel post-arrest) occurred, the court applied the Grant test under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

It concluded that the seriousness of the breaches was modest, the impact on the defendant's Charter interests was slight and momentary, and society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits, given the reliable and crucial evidence, outweighed the breaches.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

Mario Mendonca was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol content over 80 mg.

The defence filed a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking exclusion of evidence.

The court conducted a blended voir dire and dismissed all Charter arguments, finding no breaches.

The evidence, including blood alcohol readings, was admitted.

Mendonca was found guilty on both charges.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of producing marijuana without authorization and two counts of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

He appealed both his convictions and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of mens rea, party liability, or credibility.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the original sentence demonstrably unfit due to the duration of house arrest and electronic monitoring, and set aside the probation order.

Tenzin Norbu appealed a committal order for extradition to the United States on immigration fraud charges and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order.

The alleged scheme involved preparing and selling fraudulent documentation and false narratives to asylum seekers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal, finding sufficient identification evidence and evidence for the broader fraudulent scheme, and the application for judicial review, upholding the Minister's decision not to seek assurances regarding potential deportation to China.

The appellant appealed an extradition order and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order related to fraud charges in the U.S. The core issues included an alleged s. 8 Charter breach regarding the use of passport photographs, a request for additional disclosure, and an argument of improper delegation by the Minister.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and judicial review, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in passport photos, no basis for further disclosure, and that the Minister's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant, Ezra Harely, appealed his convictions for possession and production of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and his 18-month custodial sentence.

The appeal raised three grounds: a flawed s. 8 Charter analysis and admission of seized evidence, improper jury instructions, and the trial judge's refusal to impose a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the trial judge's s. 8 Charter analysis or findings of fact regarding the search warrants, no reversible error in the jury charge, and no unfitness or error in principle in the imposed custodial sentence given the scale of the operation and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The United States sought the extradition of Sabrina Elofer.

Elofer brought an application for extraordinary disclosure, leave to cross-examine police officers, and a stay of proceedings based on alleged abusive state conduct, which was dismissed.

Elofer then sought reconsideration of that decision, arguing she had not had a full opportunity to make submissions on all issues.

The court dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no error in its prior decision and that the applicant's arguments had been sufficiently heard and lacked an air of reality to justify further proceedings or a stay.

The appellant, convicted of theft over $5,000 and sentenced to six months imprisonment followed by two years probation, appealed both her conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial judge properly grappled with the evidence and that the grounds of appeal constituted an attempt to reargue the trial.

The court also denied a fresh evidence application regarding alleged gaps in the trial transcript, concluding that the appellant failed to establish irreparable prejudice or that material evidence was missing.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was not demonstrably unfit and the trial judge's discretion in declining a conditional sentence for a breach of trust involving theft from an employer was upheld.

The accused, L.S., brought a pre-trial application for disclosure and production of third-party records from the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) and the Catholic Children’s Aid Society (CCAS) in a sexual assault and sexual interference prosecution.

The application sought HPS occurrence reports, CCAS records related to the current investigation and prior investigations, and exchanges of information between the Crown, HPS, and CCAS.

The court dismissed the request for HPS records, prior CCAS records, and inter-agency exchanges due to insufficient evidentiary basis and lack of likely relevance.

However, the court ordered the CCAS records already in the Crown's possession, related to the current investigation and specifically concerning the complainant's disclosure of a video of the child, to be produced to the court for review under section 278.5 of the Criminal Code, finding them likely relevant to the complainant's credibility and necessary in the interests of justice.

The United States sought the extradition of the respondent for sex trafficking offences.

The Attorney General of Canada sought an order for committal under the Extradition Act, based on the corresponding Canadian offence of receiving a financial or other material benefit from human trafficking.

The respondent argued that the conduct amounted only to prostitution, which is legal in Canada, thus failing the double criminality requirement.

The court found that the essence of the offence was exploitation and human trafficking, not merely prostitution.

Finding sufficient evidence of the essential elements of the Canadian offence, the court ordered the respondent committed into custody to await extradition.

The United States sought the extradition of Festus Akpobome (also known as Ejiro Efevwerha and Andrew Ejiro Efevwerha) to face fraud charges.

The primary issues were whether the requesting state established the identity of the respondent as the person sought and whether the requesting state's conduct amounted to an abuse of process.

The court found that the evidence, including witness identification, photographic comparison, and email analysis, sufficiently established identity on a balance of probabilities.

The court also dismissed the abuse of process argument, finding no "blatant unfairness" or serious misconduct by the requesting state.

Consequently, an order was issued committing the respondent to custody for extradition.

The appellant, a private informant, laid an information against his ex-wife.

At the scheduled pre-enquete, before any evidence was heard, the Crown directed a stay of proceedings under s. 579(1) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant applied to the Superior Court to set aside the stay, but the motion judge summarily dismissed the application under Rule 34.02 of the Criminal Proceedings Rules, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Crown has the authority to enter a stay at the outset of a pre-enquete and that prosecutorial discretion is only reviewable for abuse of process, which was not established here.

In an extradition proceeding, the respondent, Zong Tao Chen, sought by the U.S. for sex trafficking, filed a constitutional challenge to s. 286.2 of the Criminal Code, alleging infringements of ss. 2(d) and 7 of the Charter.

The Attorney General of Canada moved to summarily dismiss this challenge.

The court granted the dismissal, finding that s. 286.2 was not the provision before the court in the current Authority to Proceed (ATP), which cited s. 279.02.

The court also ruled that a constitutional invalidation of one provision cannot be analogized to another with different elements, and noted that s. 279.02 had already been declared constitutional in a prior case (R. v. D’Souza).

Additionally, the respondent failed to provide sufficient notice as required by the Criminal Proceeding Rules.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, applied for the committal of the respondent for extradition to face charges of making child pornography.

The charges were based on photographs discovered on the respondent's electronic devices, which were seized without a warrant by Canadian police while the respondent was staying as a guest in a friend's home.

The court found that the warrantless seizure of the devices violated the respondent's section 8 Charter rights, as he maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy in his personal electronic devices despite being a temporary guest.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter due to the seriousness of the breach and the failure of police to file a Report to a Justice as soon as practicable.

Without the excluded photographs, there was insufficient evidence to justify committal, and the respondent was discharged.

The person sought in an extradition proceeding, Ejiro Efevwerha (a.k.a.

Festus Akpobome), brought a second application for disclosure from Canadian authorities.

He sought information on how American law enforcement obtained his Ontario driver's license photo and accessed his email account, arguing potential s. 8 Charter violations and challenging the quality of identification evidence.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, opposed the application, asserting that an extradition hearing is not a criminal trial and the Revised Record of the Case no longer relied on Canadian-gathered evidence.

The court dismissed the application, finding no 'air of reality' to the Charter claims as the Charter does not apply to foreign law enforcement actions outside Canada, and the requesting state had removed Canadian-gathered evidence from its record.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, applied for an order committing the respondent into custody pending a decision on his extradition.

The United States sought the respondent for allegedly preparing fraudulent asylum applications and providing false identification documents.

The court found that the double-criminality requirement was met, as the alleged conduct would constitute counselling misrepresentation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act if committed in Canada.

The court also dismissed the respondent's arguments regarding identity, finding sufficient evidence that the respondent was the person sought.

The committal order was granted.

The person sought in an extradition proceeding brought two pre-hearing applications.

First, he sought discharge, arguing the Minister of Justice failed to sign the Authority to Proceed within the strict timelines of the Extradition Act.

Second, he sought disclosure of materials related to the Minister's decision to substitute a new Authority to Proceed and materials from a related Toronto Police Service investigation.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the Authority to Proceed was signed within the 90-day statutory limit.

The court also held that there was no air of reality to the abuse of process claim regarding the substituted Authority to Proceed, and that the person sought was not entitled to disclosure of the Canadian police investigation because the requesting state did not rely on Canadian-gathered evidence.

The United States sought the extradition of the applicant for allegedly counselling individuals to make false asylum claims.

The applicant sought further disclosure regarding the eyewitness identification process, arguing the evidence was manifestly unreliable.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was a fishing expedition and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the requested disclosure would establish manifest unreliability.

The applicants, awaiting extradition hearings, challenged the constitutionality of sections 2(2) and 3(2) of the Department of Justice Act as applied to the Extradition Act.

They argued that vesting the distinct roles of Minister of Justice and Attorney General in a single elected individual violates section 7 of the Charter by creating an apprehension of bias.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that it was bound by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Idziak, which held that the distinct phases of the extradition process permit the Minister to perform both roles without violating the principles of fundamental justice.