Michael Bernstein

The self-represented moving party sought leave to appeal the striking of his summary conviction appeals, which were dismissed for failing to acquire transcripts.

He brought a motion seeking a waiver of the transcript requirement, relying on pseudo-legal arguments regarding his status as a 'natural person' and international law.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the transcripts were necessary to adjudicate the appeals, the moving party failed to prove financial inability to acquire them, and his constitutional and international law arguments were without merit and not properly before a single judge.

The applicant brought an application for certiorari to quash his committal for trial on a charge of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

He argued that the preliminary hearing judge improperly admitted hearsay evidence and that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support a committal.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that evidentiary rulings are questions of law not reviewable on certiorari, and that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable inference of guilt could be drawn.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash his committal for trial on a charge of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

He argued the preliminary hearing judge committed jurisdictional error by drawing speculative inferences about his knowledge and control of the drugs found in his vehicle.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the circumstantial evidence, including intercepted communications and his role as the driver, reasonably supported inferences of knowledge and joint possession.

The court concluded there was some evidence upon which a jury could rationally convict.

The appellants, the publisher and editor of Your Ward News, appealed their convictions and sentences for wilfully promoting hatred against Jews and women.

They argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons, misapprehended the evidence, and erred in imposing consecutive six-month sentences.

One appellant also alleged ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeals, finding the trial judge's reasons were sufficient, the verdicts were reasonable based on the overwhelming message of hatred in the publication, trial counsel was competent, and the consecutive maximum sentences were fit given the separate legally protected interests of the two targeted groups.

The applicants, charged with bookmaking and criminal organization offences, brought a pre-trial application challenging the constitutional validity of the gaming and criminal organization provisions of the Criminal Code and related regulations.

They argued that the gaming provisions were ultra vires Parliament's criminal law power, that the regulation deeming gaming offences as 'serious offences' violated section 7 of the Charter due to overbreadth and gross disproportionality, and that the bookmaking prohibition violated freedom of expression and association under section 2 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, finding the provisions were a valid exercise of the criminal law power, did not violate the Charter, and in any event, would be saved under section 1.