Nathan J. Whitling

This appeal addressed whether a provincial securities offence carrying a maximum sentence of five years less a day, together with a potential multimillion-dollar fine, engaged the right to a jury trial under s. 11(f) of the Charter.

The appellate record concerned conflicting lower-court rulings on whether the penalty scheme amounted to a more severe punishment requiring jury process.

The Court held that the accused was not entitled to a jury trial and adopted the majority reasoning of the provincial appellate court.

The statutory maximum imprisonment threshold was not transformed into a constitutionally jury-entitling punishment by adding the prospect of a financial penalty.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant challenged a sexual assault conviction where forensic DNA source evidence was treated as probative despite defence evidence that it lacked scientific foundation.

The Court held that the trial judge applied materially different levels of scrutiny to the Crown and defence experts, accepting the Crown expert evidence at face value while intensely scrutinizing the defence expert.

That asymmetry was unwarranted and tended to shift the burden of proof.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial was ordered, with admissibility of the impugned DNA source opinion to be determined at any retrial if tendered.

The Court decided that under s. 20(a) of the International Transfer of Offenders Act, Omar Ahmed Khadr’s eight-year sentence could not be treated as five distinct concurrent eight-year sentences for placement purposes.

It held that the statutory scheme required placement in a provincial correctional facility and confirmed the Alberta Court of Appeal’s order.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.