Marc Cigana

The accused, Patrick Gordon MacDonald, was charged with terrorism offences for participating in or contributing to the production of three recruitment videos for the Atomwaffen Division (AWD), a white supremacist terrorist group.

The court found that MacDonald participated in the production and online posting of these videos and other images promoting AWD’s violent neo-Nazi ideology, with the intent to recruit others and facilitate terrorist activity.

The court accepted expert evidence that AWD was a terrorist group in 2018-2019, and found that MacDonald’s actions met the requirements for participation, facilitation, and wilful promotion of hatred under the Criminal Code.

MacDonald was found guilty on all counts.

The Crown appealed acquittals entered on criminal organization counts and the quashing of a possession-for-trafficking conviction.

The Court held the possession verdict was unreasonable because the evidentiary nexus between the seized cocaine and the accused’s conspiracy was not proven.

It further held that the accused was not a member of the trafficking group for purposes of membership-based liability under the organized-crime provisions.

However, the Court found the trafficking offence was committed in association with the organization because the accused knowingly supplied and supported its operations.

The appeal was therefore allowed only to restore the conviction on the association-based count.

The accused, a senator, was charged with accepting a benefit in consideration for exercising influence in connection with government business, contrary to s. 121(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge acquitted the accused, finding that the Crown failed to prove a 'corrupt' state of mind.

The Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that s. 121(1)(a) does not require a 'corrupt' state of mind.

The Crown need only prove that the accused intentionally committed the prohibited act with knowledge of the relevant circumstances.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal that set aside a stay of proceedings ordered after a lengthy pre-trial delay.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by the Court of Appeal, finding that a stay could not be ordered absent proof of impairment of the ability to present a full answer and defence or proof of oppressive or vexatious behaviour by the Crown or police.