Leo Adler

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 accused was charged with ten offences related to child pornography, sexual interference, and counselling sexual offences.

The Crown's case involved an undercover police investigation where Detective Constable Mailer posed as "Sara Mills," a fictitious mother, in response to the accused's Craigslist advertisement.

Over several days of online communications via Kik messenger, the accused engaged in explicit discussions about sexual acts involving children, sent images alleged to be child pornography, and made arrangements to meet.

The accused was arrested before the planned meeting.

The trial addressed three principal issues: whether the police breached the accused's Charter rights regarding privacy in electronic communications; which photographs constituted child pornography; and whether the accused was entrapped.

The court found no Charter breach, identified specific images as child pornography, and rejected the entrapment defence, finding the police investigation was bona fide with reasonable suspicion and that the accused was not induced to commit the offences.

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.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving, driving with excess blood alcohol concentration, and dangerous driving following a traffic stop.

The Crown withdrew the first two charges, leaving only the dangerous driving charge for trial.

The court found that the defendant's driving over approximately 25 kilometres, characterized by sustained lane violations, erratic speeds, failure to maintain control, and resistance to police intervention, constituted dangerous driving under the Criminal Code.

The defendant was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of dangerous driving.

Gregory Hibbert, facing extradition to the United States for child pornography charges, sought judicial interim release upon his statutory release from a Canadian prison sentence for similar offences.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, opposed bail, citing flight risk and public safety concerns under the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds of section 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

The court, applying a cautious approach due to international obligations, found the flight risk to be low given Hibbert's past compliance and lack of international connections.

Regarding public safety, the court determined that the risk was no greater than when he was previously granted bail, especially considering his correctional programming.

On the tertiary ground, while acknowledging the gravity of the offences, the court concluded that existing prohibition orders and suitable bail conditions would adequately maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Bail was granted with a $40,000 recognizance and specific conditions.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a certiorari application challenging her committal for trial on charges of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and cultivating marijuana.

The Court of Appeal upheld the committal, finding that there was evidence capable of supporting the inference that the appellant was working at the commercial grow-operation on the day of her arrest and that the evidence, considered as a whole, constituted some evidence of her involvement as a party in the alleged offences.

The appeal was dismissed.

The person sought for extradition to the United States applied for further disclosure, including the cross-examination of police officers and communications between Canadian and US officials.

He alleged that evidence was obtained in violation of his Charter rights during a warrantless search of his electronic devices and subsequent sharing of information with US authorities.

The court dismissed the disclosure request, finding that while there was an air of reality to the Charter claims, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the requested testimony and documents would likely be relevant to determining the legality of the search and seizure.

The applicant, sought for extradition to the United States, brought a motion to adjourn his extradition hearing and to join it with two unrelated extradition hearings involving different individuals represented by the same counsel.

The purpose of the joinder was to hear a common Charter challenge regarding the dual role of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General under the Extradition Act.

The court dismissed the application for joinder, noting that such an application must be made to the Chief Justice or her designate pursuant to s. 551.7 of the Criminal Code.

However, the court granted the adjournment to allow the applicant to serve and file his Charter application.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, sought summary dismissal of Gregory Hibbert's application to resist extradition for child pornography charges.

Hibbert argued that evidence was obtained in violation of his Charter rights and sought various remedies, including exclusion of evidence and striking out his prior Canadian guilty plea.

The court dismissed Hibbert's claims related to his Canadian guilty plea and the informal sharing of evidence, finding them outside the extradition judge's jurisdiction or without legal basis.

However, the court found an "air of reality" to Hibbert's claim that evidence used in the extradition request was obtained in Canada in violation of his Charter rights, and allowed that specific aspect of his application to proceed to a full hearing.

The Appellant, Graham Blair, appealed his conviction for impaired driving.

The appeal raised five grounds, primarily challenging the trial judge's findings on reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and breath demand, the onus of proof for a Charter s. 9 breach, the consistency of factual findings regarding police officers, and the sufficiency of evidence for conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge correctly applied the legal principles, including the onus on the accused to prove a Charter breach, the objective and subjective test for reasonable and probable grounds, and the standard of "slight impairment" for impaired driving convictions based on the totality of circumstantial evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm and his 12-month conditional sentence including eight months of house arrest.

The appeal raised three grounds: the validity of the search warrant, the admissibility of utterances made upon arrest, and jury instruction discrepancies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's validation of the search warrant, no error in admitting the spontaneous and voluntary utterances despite a Charter breach under section 9, and no legal error in the jury instructions.

The court upheld the conditional sentence as appropriate given the serious nature of the offence and the need for general deterrence and denunciation.

The appellant, Daniel Ferriera, appealed his conviction for an "over 80" offence, arguing that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in fact-finding and incorrectly determined that the arresting officer had objective reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.

The officer had observed signs of impairment at a collision scene.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the officer's credibility and no error in concluding that objective reasonable and probable grounds existed based on the totality of circumstances.

The applicant sought an order of certiorari to quash her committal to stand trial on charges of possession of cannabis marihuana for the purpose of trafficking and producing marihuana.

The application argued that the preliminary inquiry justice exceeded jurisdiction by committing based on insufficient evidence regarding control over the premises/marihuana and participation in cultivation, amounting to speculation.

The court reviewed the standard for certiorari, which limits intervention to jurisdictional error, and the "scintilla of evidence" test for committal.

It found that the preliminary inquiry judge's inferences were reasonable, supported by circumstantial evidence connecting the applicant to the large-scale grow operation, including her presence, personal belongings, and car keys found within the facility.

The court dismissed the application, affirming that a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer the applicant's involvement.

The applicant initiated a private prosecution against his former spouse for child abduction, disobeying court orders, and perjury arising from family litigation.

The Crown intervened and directed a stay of the proceedings.

The applicant applied to set aside the stay.

The Crown sought summary dismissal of the application under Rule 34.02 of the Criminal Proceedings Rules.

The court granted the summary dismissal, finding no reasonable prospect that the application could succeed, as the Crown's decision to stay the proceedings did not amount to flagrant impropriety.

A reference from the Minister of Justice concerning convictions entered in 1987 for break and enter, assault causing bodily harm, and overcoming resistance by strangulation.

The case turned entirely on eyewitness identification evidence from the victim, which suffered from significant frailties including a procedurally flawed courtroom identification.

Fresh evidence revealed that the victim and a police officer involved in the identification procedure were in a personal relationship that was not disclosed to the defence.

The court found that fairness required disclosure of this relationship and that there was a reasonable possibility the non-disclosure impacted the trial outcome.

The convictions were quashed and a new trial ordered.