Leo Adler

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.

The applicants sought leave to appeal their convictions under the Environmental Protection Act following a 14-day trial and a subsequent appeal to the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicants were convicted of nine provincial offences related to discharging contaminants into the environment and failing to comply with lawful orders issued following catastrophic propane explosions at their facility that killed one employee and displaced approximately 12,000 residents.

The Court of Appeal considered whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 131 of the Provincial Offences Act, which requires identification of a pure question of law that is essential in the public interest or for the due administration of justice.

The court found that the two grounds of appeal raised by the applicants were fact-laden and did not identify pure questions of law transcending the unique factual circumstances of the case.

Leave to appeal was refused.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for multiple regulatory offences under the Environmental Protection Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a massive propane explosion at their facility that resulted in a worker's death and widespread environmental contamination.

The appellants argued the trial judge made numerous factual and legal errors, including rejecting their defence of officially induced error and finding a lack of due diligence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of strict liability principles.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeals, upholding over $5 million in fines due to the unprecedented magnitude of the damage and the appellants' reckless conduct.

The offender pled guilty to two counts of trafficking in hashish oil (shatter), a Schedule II substance under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The offender sold single grams of shatter to an undercover police officer on three occasions for $70 each.

The Crown sought to establish aggravating factors related to production and manufacture of shatter, but the court dismissed the Crown's expert evidence application and found insufficient evidence of production involvement.

The offender was a youthful first offender with no criminal record who demonstrated genuine rehabilitation post-arrest, including pursuing law school studies.

The court imposed an absolute discharge, finding that a conviction would be disproportionately harsh given the minor nature of the offences, the offender's location at the bottom of the distribution chain, and his demonstrated rehabilitation and future professional prospects.

The Crown sought to admit expert evidence from a police sergeant regarding the dangers associated with the production and consumption of cannabis concentrate ("shatter") as aggravating factors in sentencing for drug trafficking.

The defendant opposed the admission of this evidence.

The court conducted an admissibility voir dire and determined that the proposed expert evidence should not be received.

The court found that the evidence failed to meet the threshold requirements for admissibility under the Mohan test, particularly regarding relevance, necessity, and the qualifications of the proposed expert witness.

The Crown sought the forfeiture of a recognizance against the accused and a surety following a breach of a non-communication condition.

The breach occurred under a first recognizance, which was subsequently vacated and replaced by a second.

The Certificate of Default, required under section 770 of the Criminal Code, was mistakenly completed on the second recognizance instead of the one that was actually breached.

The court held that jurisdiction for estreatment requires the Certificate of Default to be endorsed on the specific recognizance that was breached, not a successor.

Due to this procedural error, the court lacked jurisdiction, and the Crown's application for estreatment was dismissed.

The appellant, a former Member of Parliament, appealed his convictions and sentence for exceeding election expense limits, exceeding personal contribution limits, and filing a false electoral campaign return under the Canada Elections Act.

The Crown cross-appealed the sentence, seeking a longer term of imprisonment.

The appeal court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge correctly interpreted the definition of election expenses, properly assessed credibility, and correctly applied party liability provisions.

The court also dismissed both sentence appeals, upholding the global sentence of one month in jail, a four-month conditional sentence, and 18 months' probation as proportionate and fit, though it set aside a $10,000 restitution order on consent.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in her blood exceeded the legal limit.

The defence challenged the admissibility of breath test results, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable grounds for the Approved Screening Device demand and that the breathalyser instrument was operated improperly, thereby rebutting the presumption of accuracy.

The court found that the officer had reasonable grounds for the ASD demand based on observed signs of impairment and the accused's admission of alcohol consumption.

While the court found that the qualified technician improperly operated the Intoxilyzer by performing the calibration check too soon and failing to review printouts, the court determined that the Crown had satisfied the burden of establishing reliability of the results based on the subject test record and the technician's credible explanation for the initial calibration anomaly.

The accused was found guilty.

The applicant sought to quash a search warrant executed at his residence and to exclude a firearm and ammunition seized during the search, alleging violations of ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter.

The warrant was based on intercepted communications during a police firearms trafficking investigation, where investigators interpreted coded references in telephone conversations as referring to handguns and ammunition.

The applicant argued the Information to Obtain contained misleading statements, insufficient grounds, and improper interpretation of coded language.

Applying the warrant review principles from Garofoli and subsequent jurisprudence, the court held that the reviewing judge’s role was limited to determining whether the issuing justice could have granted the warrant based on reliable evidence.

The court found that any errors in the ITO were minor, made in good faith, and did not undermine the existence of reasonable and probable grounds.

The application to quash the search warrant and exclude the evidence was dismissed.