Public Prosecution Service of Canada

The appellants challenged an ex parte production order requiring disclosure of journalist-source communications used in published reporting about alleged terrorism offences.

The Court held the governing framework for production orders against media remains applicable, with refinements to notice analysis, balancing factors, and review methodology.

The Court rejected a presumptive notice rule and confirmed that authorizing judges retain discretion to require notice based on circumstances.

On the record, the statutory preconditions were met and the balancing of investigative interests against media newsgathering interests supported issuance of the order.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought a stay for breach of the constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable time after substantial pre-trial and trial delay in a drug prosecution.

The Court held the delay was unreasonable and reformulated the governing section 11(b) framework by introducing presumptive ceilings of 18 months in provincial court and 30 months in superior court or post-preliminary inquiry matters.

Delay above the ceiling is presumed unreasonable unless the Crown proves exceptional circumstances outside its control.

Applying that framework contextually, the remaining delay far exceeded the ceiling and was not justified by complexity, transition, or institutional strain.

The convictions were set aside and a stay was entered.

On a sentence appeal, the Court considered a constitutional challenge to the one-year mandatory minimum in s. 5(3)(a)(i)(D) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for repeat trafficking-related offences.

The majority held provincial court judges may decide constitutionality in matters before them, although they cannot issue formal s. 52(1) declarations.

Applying the reasonable hypothetical framework, the Court found the provision captured less blameworthy offenders and could impose grossly disproportionate punishment contrary to s. 12 of the Charter.

The infringement was not justified under s. 1, and the Court declined to decide s. 7 after resolving the appeal under s. 12.

The appeal was allowed and the 12-month sentence restored.