Michel F. Denis

The accused pleaded guilty to drug trafficking offences involving a cross-border smuggling operation.

At sentencing, the judge applied s. 725(1)(c) of the Criminal Code over the Crown's objections to consider three uncharged offences related to the operation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 725(1)(c) does not require the Crown's consent.

The Court found that two of the uncharged offences had a real and substantial connection to Canada and were properly considered, but the third occurred entirely in the United States and fell outside Canadian jurisdiction.

The Crown's appeal and the accused's cross-appeal were both dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to drug trafficking offences and was sentenced to imprisonment.

The trial judge found the offender had received at least $150,000 from the crimes but had squandered it.

Taking the offender's ability to pay into account, the trial judge imposed a $20,000 fine instead of a forfeiture order under s. 462.37(3) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal upheld the fine.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that a court's discretion under s. 462.37(3) is limited and does not permit consideration of an offender's ability to pay when deciding whether to impose a fine or determining its amount.

The Court ordered a fine of $150,000.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration sought to deport the respondent, a permanent resident, alleging that a speech he delivered in Rwanda in 1992 constituted incitement to murder, hatred, and genocide, and a crime against humanity.

The Immigration and Refugee Board (Appeal Division) upheld the deportation order, but the Federal Court of Appeal set it aside after reassessing the factual findings.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Minister's appeal, holding that the Federal Court of Appeal exceeded its judicial review function by substituting its own findings of fact.

Applying customary international law and the Criminal Code, the Court found that the speech constituted incitement to murder, hatred, and genocide, and amounted to persecution as a crime against humanity.

The deportation order was restored.

The appellant brought a motion to strike certain documents from the respondents' record on appeal, including factums from the courts below, directions of the Court of Appeal, a motion to file fresh evidence, written representations on costs, correspondence, and a table of concordance.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted the motion in part.

The Court held that the factums, directions, motion, and representations on costs fell within the meaning of 'pleadings' and 'orders' under Rule 39(1)(b) and were properly included.

However, the correspondence and table of concordance constituted fresh evidence and were ordered struck from the record.