Robert Morin

This is an appeal from a Superior Court order granting certiorari.

The decision itself is subject to a statutory non-publication order under section 539 of the Criminal Code, pending the outcome of the trial.

The full text of the reasons is not publicly available.

ATV Farms sought certiorari to quash search warrants and production orders, and a declaration that its s. 8 Charter rights were infringed, following a CFIA investigation into alleged mislabelling of produce.

The court found reasonable grounds for specific mislabelling offences related to US-grown turnips (Counts 1-4) but not for broader, unparticularized allegations (Count 5).

The Information to Obtain (ITO) contained inaccurate and misleading statements regarding a prior incident, which, once corrected, undermined the grounds for Count 5.

The court held that the broad search warrants and production orders could not be severed and were therefore unlawful, infringing ATV Farms's s. 8 Charter rights.

The applicant, ATV Farms, sought certiorari to quash search warrants executed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and a declaration that its s. 8 Charter rights were infringed.

The CFIA had seized documents based on alleged mislabeling of produce.

The Crown opposed, arguing the matter should be heard by a trial judge if charges were laid.

The court addressed the preliminary issue of whether to hear the application at this stage, concluding that the overall interests of justice favoured allowing the application to proceed.

This decision was based on the applicant's claim of reputational and financial harm and its decision to seek only declaratory relief, not the return of seized documents, which mitigated concerns about interfering with the ongoing investigation.

The appellant appealed a 15-month jail sentence imposed for two counts of making false statements contrary to the Canada Small Business Financing Act and three counts of fraud contrary to the Criminal Code.

The appellant had exploited the Canada Small Business Financing Program by using false documents to secure loans for his own business and seven other business entities, resulting in over $1 million in loans advanced and $409,000 in losses to Industry Canada.

The appellant extracted $192,000 in fees and obtained $100,000 through his own company.

The sentencing judge imposed imprisonment after finding that a conditional sentence would not sufficiently advance general deterrence and denunciation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, finding no error in principle and that the sentence was not manifestly unfit.

The appellant was detained awaiting trial on charges under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for advising on immigration matters without authorization.

She appealed the denial of habeas corpus relief by the Superior Court.

The Crown preferred a direct indictment on all charges, and the original charges were stayed.

The Court of Appeal addressed four issues: the validity of the preferred indictment, the continued validity of the detention order, the statutory authority for arrest, and the duration of pre-trial custody compared to potential sentence.

The court found no defect in the direct indictment under current Criminal Code provisions, confirmed the detention order continues to apply to the new indictment, and determined that the duration of pre-trial custody issue was best addressed through a bail review rather than habeas corpus.

The court set aside the application judge's decision for inadequate reasons and ordered a new bail review hearing.