Moray Welch

The appellant appealed his convictions for production and possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the trial judge erred in failing to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant claimed his ss. 10(a) and 10(b) rights were breached due to a delay in providing a Vietnamese interpreter upon his arrest.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's application of the Grant factors, noting the delay was an isolated mistake, the appellant was not mistreated, and the evidence was obtained pursuant to a valid search warrant issued prior to the arrest.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was abandoned.

The applicants, charged with fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud in relation to a bid-rigging scheme, brought an application for the disclosure or third-party production of investigative files held by counsel for cooperating witnesses.

The cooperating witnesses had received immunity or leniency under the Competition Bureau's programs.

The applicants argued that the witnesses' lawyers acted as state agents when interviewing their clients and that solicitor-client privilege over those interview notes was waived.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the lawyers were not acting as state agents, the communications remained protected by solicitor-client privilege, and the privilege was never waived.

Consequently, the materials were not within the Crown's control for Stinchcombe disclosure and could not be produced as third-party records.

The applicants sought to quash charges of fraud on the public and conspiracy to defraud the public, arguing that the evidence identified 38 specific corporate victims, thus requiring individual naming in the indictment.

The Crown contended that the charges were properly framed against the public due to the impossibility of identifying all victims (e.g., individual condominium owners affected by increased fees) and the broad interpretation of "public" in the Criminal Code.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the charges were appropriately framed as offenses against the public, consistent with recent jurisprudence where a segment of the community or a regulated industry can constitute "the public," and where a ripple effect on unidentifiable parties exists.

The accused, charged with possession of property obtained by crime and laundering proceeds of crime, brought a pre-trial application to exclude Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) documents obtained by the investigating officer.

The officer had requested the documents under s. 241(3) of the Income Tax Act, relying on previous, unrelated charges.

The court found that for an investigation into potential new charges, the officer was required to obtain a judicial order under s. 462.48(3) of the Criminal Code.

The warrantless search of the taxpayer information violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the CRA documents from evidence and excised references to them from the Informations to Obtain (ITOs).

However, the court found that the edited ITOs still contained sufficient reliable evidence to support the General Production Orders, and declined to exclude the evidence obtained through those orders.

The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in a controlled substance, trafficking in methamphetamine, and possession of proceeds of crime.

He appealed both his convictions and sentence.

On conviction, he argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his s. 10(b) Charter application, claiming police failed to ensure he understood his right to counsel and delayed access to duty counsel.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's finding that the appellant understood his rights and declined to consider the delay argument raised for the first time on appeal.

On sentence, the appellant argued the trial judge improperly considered irrelevant aggravating factors, specifically his "higher involvement" in the drug hierarchy and discussions about fentanyl and firearms.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding that the evidence supported the appellant's higher role and that discussions of other serious criminal activities were relevant aggravating factors, even if the transfers did not materialize due to arrest.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and while leave to appeal sentence was granted and fresh evidence admitted, the sentence appeal was also dismissed.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal judge's decision that quashed a conviction under the Lobbying Act.

The respondent, a former senior advisor to the Prime Minister, became executive director of the Canada School of Energy and Environment (CSEE) within the five-year post-employment lobbying prohibition period.

He engaged in communications with Industry Canada officials regarding the extension of an uncommitted portion of a $15 million grant to prevent forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal held that the Lobbying Act was unambiguous and that the respondent's communications constituted prohibited lobbying activity respecting the awarding of a financial benefit.

The Court reinstated the conviction, rejecting the appeal judge's reliance on irrelevant factors such as who initiated the communications and whether government officials considered the conduct to be lobbying.

The applicants, charged with offences under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings alleging their s. 11(b) Charter rights to be tried within a reasonable time were infringed.

The total delay from charges to the anticipated end of trial was 44 months.

The court applied the Jordan framework, confirming a 30-month presumptive ceiling for matters proceeding by preferred indictment in the Superior Court.

After deducting defence delay and time attributed to the extradition process as a discrete event (minus a period for Crown lack of diligence), the net delay was calculated at 27 months for one applicant and 26 months and 3 weeks for the other.

As the net delay fell below the 30-month ceiling and the case was particularly complex, the court dismissed the stay applications.

The appellant was convicted of agreeing to offer a bribe to foreign public officials contrary to section 3(1)(b) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

As an agent of Cryptometrics Canada, the appellant agreed with other employees to bribe Indian officials to secure a multi-million dollar Air India contract.

The appeal raised three main grounds: lack of territorial jurisdiction, misinterpretation of the word "agree" in the statute, and misapplication of the co-conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.

This endorsement lifts a stay on a previous decision released on April 21, 2017, after the parties confirmed that no appeal was contemplated.

The materials in question are now permitted to be released to the parties and the public as outlined in the original decision.

The applicants, a consortium of media organizations, sought to lift sealing orders and prevent a publication ban on judicial authorizations, including a search warrant, related to an investigation into Vice-Admiral Mark Norman for allegedly leaking cabinet confidential information.

Vice-Admiral Norman and the Crown argued for a publication ban to protect his fair trial rights, while interveners (Chantier Davie Canada Inc. and Federal Fleet Services Inc.) sought to maintain sealing orders for commercially sensitive pricing data.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court found no serious risk to the proper administration of justice or fair trial rights from extensive publicity, noting that jurors are presumed capable of impartiality and that the alleged misconduct did not create an "unshakable stigma." The court also considered the impact of social media on the efficacy of publication bans.

The application to lift sealing orders and deny a publication ban was largely granted, with the exception of specific commercial pricing information from the interveners and uncontested redactions for cabinet confidentiality and third-party personal information.

A federal Crown corporation sought to quash a production order issued under the Criminal Code requiring disclosure of customer information.

The applicant argued that section 24.3 of the Export Development Act created a legal privilege protecting customer information from disclosure during criminal investigations, though it acknowledged an exception for prosecutions.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the term "privileged" in the statute referred to confidential information rather than a legal privilege, and that the exception for "prosecuting an offence" included prospective prosecutions and investigative stages when authorized by a judicial order.

The court held that the applicant must comply with the production order.

The accused was convicted after trial of offering a bribe to foreign public officials contrary to s. 3(1)(b) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

The bribery scheme involved a sophisticated plan to pay millions of dollars to officials of a foreign airline and a cabinet minister to secure a lucrative technology contract.

The court emphasized that bribery of foreign officials undermines the rule of law and Canada’s international obligations and that the dominant sentencing principles are denunciation and general deterrence.

Although the accused had no prior criminal record, cooperated extensively, and the scheme ultimately failed, the court found that the seriousness and planning of the offence required a penitentiary sentence.

A custodial term of three years was imposed.

The accused was charged under s. 3(1)(b) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act for agreeing to offer bribes to officials of a foreign state-owned airline and the country’s Minister of Civil Aviation in order to secure a contract for biometric facial recognition technology.

The Crown alleged that the accused conspired with corporate executives and intermediaries to arrange payments and other benefits to influence the tender process.

The defence argued that no actual bribe to a specific foreign official was proven and that Canada lacked territorial jurisdiction.

The court held that the offence under the Act includes agreements or conspiracies to offer bribes and does not require proof that a bribe was ultimately delivered.

Applying the “real and substantial connection” test, the court found sufficient jurisdiction because a Canadian company, Canadian agents, and significant conduct related to the scheme were based in Canada.

The accused was convicted.

The accused, a husband and wife, were charged with defrauding Human Resources Development Canada of over $70,000 in Canada Pension Plan disability benefits.

The Crown alleged they failed to report the husband's return to self-employment and subsequent employment after he suffered a catastrophic injury in 1998.

The court found that the wife, who signed the initial application while under severe stress, did not have the requisite intent to commit fraud.

The court also found that the husband, whose business operated at a loss and who had limited understanding of the reporting requirements, lacked the subjective awareness required for the mens rea of fraud.

Both accused were acquitted.