Michael R. Dambrot

The appellant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine after selling crack cocaine to an undercover officer.

At trial, the appellant raised an alibi defence, claiming he was at home with his mother at the time of the offence.

The trial judge found that the alibi had not been adequately disclosed to the police, as the mother's statements at the police station were disjointed and focused on the time of arrest rather than the time of the offence.

Consequently, the trial judge drew an adverse inference against the alibi evidence and convicted the appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that proper disclosure of an alibi requires adequacy and timeliness to permit meaningful police investigation.

The majority found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the mother's statements lacked sufficient detail and coherence to constitute adequate disclosure.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which had allowed the Crown's appeal from a stay of proceedings and ordered a new trial.

The issue concerned whether the use of a police informant, who was to be paid in full only in the event of a successful investigation, constituted an abuse of process.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal as of right, adopting the reasons of the Court of Appeal that the informant's evidence was not inadmissible.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking to the Supreme Court of Canada as of right, based on a dissent in the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal orally, finding that the dissent in the court below was not on a question of law within the meaning of s. 691(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The appellants were charged with conspiracy to prevent or lessen competition unduly, contrary to s. 32(1)(c) of the Combines Investigation Act.

They moved to quash the indictment, arguing that the provision violated s. 7 of the Charter due to vagueness and an unconstitutional mens rea requirement.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the word 'unduly' is not unconstitutionally vague, as it provides a sufficient basis for legal debate and fair notice.

The Court also held that the mens rea requirement of the offence, which requires subjective intent to enter the agreement and objective fault regarding the undue lessening of competition, satisfies the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7.

The appellants appealed from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal that allowed the Crown's appeal, set aside their acquittals, and ordered new trials on charges of conspiracy to traffic in narcotics.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Court of Appeal's decision.