Robert Marchi

The appellants were charged with conspiracy to traffic in narcotics based on intercepted communications.

The trial judge found errors in the supporting affidavit material and set aside the wiretap authorizations, leading to acquittals.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittals and ordered a new trial, finding that errors in the information presented to the authorizing judge do not lead to automatic vitiation of the authorization.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing that there was sufficient reliable information to support the authorization even after excluding the erroneous parts.

The appellant, an inmate transferred to a special handling unit, appealed the dismissal of his motion for a writ of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Quebec Court of Appeal.

The appellant challenged a Court of Appeal ruling declaring unconstitutional a reverse-onus bail provision applicable to certain narcotics offences.

The Supreme Court held that habeas corpus was available in the narrow circumstances of a constitutional challenge seeking both a declaration under s. 52 and a remedial order under s. 24(1), but reaffirmed that bail review under the Criminal Code is ordinarily the proper route.

On the merits, the majority held that the reverse-onus provision did not infringe ss. 7, 9, 11(d), or 11(e) of the Charter because it operated in a narrow class of offences and was justified by the functioning of the bail system in relation to drug trafficking and flight risk.

The appeal was allowed and the habeas corpus application dismissed, subject only to the contemporaneous modification arising from Morales.

The United States sought the extradition of the respondents for a plane hijacking allegedly committed in 1969.

At the time, hijacking was not a crime under Canadian law nor an extradition crime under the existing treaties, but it was later added to the Criminal Code and the 1976 extradition treaty.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the treaty applies to crimes committed before it came into force, a fugitive may only be extradited if the act was a crime recognized in Canada at the time it was committed.

The appeal was dismissed.