Michael A. McKee

The appellant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision directing the Registrar to revoke his real estate broker registration.

The Tribunal found the appellant made false statements and his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity.

The Divisional Court found these findings reasonable but held the Tribunal's failure to address whether the renewal could be granted subject to conditions rendered the decision unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a rehearing.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of theft over $5,000.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, primarily expert cell phone tracking data showing the appellant's phone was in frequent contact with his accomplice's phone and near the locations of the thefts.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by using evidence from each count as similar fact evidence for the other, and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not use similar fact reasoning and that the circumstantial evidence reasonably supported the conclusion that the appellant was the accomplice.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for drug-related offences.

He argued that his rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter were violated during two separate incidents.

For the first incident, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding of no Charter breach, citing the cumulative effect of informant information and police observations, including an envelope from a hydroponics store and a constantly ringing cell phone.

For the second incident, the Court found no error in the trial judge's section 24(2) analysis admitting the evidence despite an assumed section 8 breach.

The Court also upheld the finding that the appellant had control of the drugs.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a serious drug offence, arguing the trial judge erred in excluding evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The trial judge had found a s. 8 violation based on a search conducted at the scene.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to properly address relevant considerations.

The Court held that the search was minimally intrusive, conducted in private, and the officer reasonably believed he was complying with police procedures.

Given the seriousness of the offence and the critical nature of the evidence, its exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.