Peter DeFreitas

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to give him time to pay a fine calculated based on the proceeds of crime.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error because the evidence showed the appellant had received $122,000 of the seized funds back from Canada Customs and therefore had access to the money.

The appellant, who grew marijuana for medical purposes, was charged with unlawfully producing cannabis and elected to be tried by a judge and jury.

At trial, the judge directed the jury to return a guilty verdict and told them they were bound to abide by his direction.

The jury returned a guilty verdict, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge deprived the appellant of his constitutional right to a trial by jury under s. 11(f) of the Charter by usurping the jury's function.

The Court further held that the curative proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code could not apply because there was, in effect, no jury trial at all.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed from a refusal to grant an order of prohibition.

The appellant argued that the presence of a trainee judge on the bench for a few hours created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower court that the trainee judge's brief presence during lengthy proceedings did not amount to cogent evidence of an apprehension of bias.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on drug trafficking charges.

Police officers responded to a 911 call about armed men and lawfully detained the respondent and his passenger in their vehicle.

After a pat-down search yielded no weapons, officers searched the vehicle and found cocaine and ecstasy in a zippered case in the glove compartment.

The trial judge found the extended vehicle search violated section 8 of the Charter as it was not reasonably necessary, and excluded the evidence under section 24(2).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the officers could have easily verified the respondent's innocent explanation instead of conducting the extended search.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that evidence obtained during a strip search should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged that strip searches are inherently intrusive and should not be routine, citing Golden.

However, the Court found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion to admit the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The accused was convicted of possession of contraband cigarettes and faced a mandatory minimum fine of $9,600 under the Excise Act.

Finding the accused unable to pay and concluding that jail was inappropriate, the trial judge imposed a conditional sentence in default of payment.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that a conditional sentence is a form of imprisonment and cannot be used merely to enforce an unpaid fine where the offender genuinely lacks the means to pay.

The Court set aside the conditional sentence but stayed further collection procedures since the sentence had already been served.

The appellants were convicted of fraud and uttering forged documents in relation to a complex tax loss scheme involving limited partnerships.

On appeal, they argued that evidence obtained during a joint investigation by Revenue Canada's Tax Avoidance and Special Investigations sections violated their Charter rights and should have been excluded.

The Court of Appeal held that while the predominant purpose test from Jarvis might push back the date the Charter breach occurred, the evidence was inevitably discoverable and properly admitted under s. 24(2).

The court also dismissed the sentence appeals, finding the sentences fit for a massive $118 million tax fraud.

The respondent was charged with possession of marijuana in April 2002.

He successfully moved to dismiss the charges on the basis that the prohibition in section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was of no force or effect at the time, following the Court of Appeal's earlier decision in R. v. Parker.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that because the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations did not create a constitutionally valid medical exemption (as determined in the companion case Hitzig v. R.), the criminal prohibition against possession of marijuana remained of no force and effect when the respondent was charged.

The Crown applied for a stay of a summary conviction appeal court judgment that affirmed the dismissal of marijuana possession charges on the basis that the offence was unknown to law in Ontario.

The Crown also sought to expedite the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for a stay, finding no jurisdiction to stay the reasons underlying a dismissal of a charge or to suspend the doctrine of stare decisis.

However, the request to expedite the appeal was granted.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an application for certiorari regarding an order for committal.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the conclusion that the evidence supported the committal order and dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard three appeals concerning the constitutionality of s. 488.1 of the Criminal Code, which sets out a procedure for determining claims of solicitor-client privilege in relation to documents seized from a law office under a warrant.

The Court held that s. 488.1 violates s. 8 of the Charter because it more than minimally impairs solicitor-client privilege.

The provision allows privilege to be lost through the inaction of the lawyer, requires the naming of clients, lacks notice to clients, imposes strict time limits without judicial discretion, and permits the Attorney General to inspect documents before privilege is determined.

The Court struck down s. 488.1 and established common law guidelines for law office searches.

The appellant appealed his committal for surrender to the United States on a charge of bringing into Canada property obtained by crime, conceding his committal on other charges related to a stolen truck ring.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under the new Extradition Act, the extradition judge is restricted by the Authority to Proceed and must accept the Minister's statement that the alleged conduct corresponds to the named Canadian offences.

As there was no application for judicial review of the Minister's decision, the court found no error in the committal.

The appellant was convicted of unlawful cultivation of a narcotic and possession for the purpose of trafficking after a marijuana grow operation was found in an apartment he rented.

The Crown relied on personal documents and papers related to hydroponics seized from the apartment and another residence as circumstantial evidence of his control over the premises.

The appellant appealed, arguing the documents had no probative value.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the documents were admissible as circumstantial evidence of the appellant's knowledge and control of the marijuana.

On a criminal appeal concerning a search warrant executed in connection with a law office, the appellant challenged the warrant on solicitor-client confidentiality grounds.

The court held that although the issuing justice had turned his mind to whether the items to be seized were privileged, he failed to attach terms of execution designed to protect the confidentiality of the lawyer's clients as much as possible.

Applying the framework governing law office search warrants after the invalidation of s. 488.1 of the Criminal Code, the court quashed the warrant.

The Crown was nevertheless permitted to retain the sealed documents for 20 days to seek a new warrant.