Marie Comiskey

The appellants were convicted of possessing 1,200 kilograms of contraband tobacco and sentenced to the minimum fine under s. 240 of the Excise Act.

They appealed, arguing that the minimum fine provisions constitute cruel and unusual punishment contrary to s. 12 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the minimum fine is not grossly disproportionate given the gravity of the offence and the direct connection between the quantity of illegal substance possessed and the size of the fine.

The court did, however, reduce the fine to $132,000 to correct a calculation error by the trial judge.

The appellant's previous counsel was removed from the record shortly before trial, and the appellant was warned the trial would proceed peremptorily.

On the trial date, the appellant sought an adjournment to obtain new counsel and review disclosure, which the trial judge refused.

During the trial, the appellant applied for prohibition and a stay of proceedings, arguing his right to a fair trial was infringed.

The applications judge denied the application, and the appellant appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that prerogative remedies should not be sought during a trial and the normal remedy is an appeal at the end of the trial.

The Court also denied the appellant's request to be represented by a non-lawyer agent.

The 80-year-old appellant pled guilty to tax evasion for failing to remit over $600,000 in GST.

He was sentenced to a 12-month conditional sentence, a mandatory fine equal to the tax evaded, and 9 months' imprisonment in default of paying a portion of the fine.

On appeal, the appellant argued he lacked the ability to pay and that a conditional sentence should be available for the default period.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding on ability to pay but, applying its recent decision in R. v. Wu, allowed the appeal to substitute a 9-month conditional sentence in default of payment of the fine.

The respondent was convicted of possessing contraband tobacco under the Excise Act and was subject to a mandatory minimum fine of $9,600.

Finding the respondent unable to pay, the trial judge gave no time to pay and imposed a 75-day conditional sentence in default of payment.

The Crown appealed, arguing a conditional sentence is not available in default of payment of a fine.

The Court of Appeal (majority) dismissed the appeal, holding that where an offender is given no time to pay a fine, the resulting immediate committal constitutes a sentence of imprisonment for which a conditional sentence may be imposed under s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of an unregistered handgun.

The court held that the trial judge erred in principle by combining a custodial sentence and a conditional sentence where the resulting total effectively amounted to a penitentiary sentence exceeding two years less one day.

However, the court also held that blended custodial and conditional sentences are legally permissible for multiple offences where the total sentence does not exceed two years less one day and the statutory preconditions in s. 742.1(b) are met.

In light of fresh evidence showing successful rehabilitation efforts while incarcerated, the court reduced the conditional sentence on the drug offence to sixteen months less one day and left the remaining terms intact.

The appellant challenged convictions and sentence on the basis of Crown non-disclosure relating to information contained in witness-preparation notes.

The court held that while an accused is entitled to relevant information disclosable under the governing disclosure principles, the notes themselves are not automatically producible.

Applying the trial fairness analysis for non-disclosure, the court found that the Crown's failure to provide additional relevant information may reasonably have affected the fairness of a trial that turned fundamentally on credibility.

Leave to appeal was granted, the appeal allowed, the convictions quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed convictions and sentence arising from trafficking in large amounts of cocaine.

He argued primarily that the judge hearing the Garofoli application unfairly limited cross-examination of the police officer who swore the affidavits supporting wiretap authorizations.

The court held that leave to cross-examine on such affidavits is not automatic, informer privilege remained protected absent the innocence-at-stake exception, and the application judge properly exercised his discretion in restricting questions that risked revealing protected information.

The court also rejected a sentence disparity argument, finding the appellant played a more significant role than others in the trafficking operation.

Both conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.