Robert Stack

The appellant, Robert Stack, appealed his convictions for internet child luring and breach offences, and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The primary issue on appeal was whether the police operation constituted entrapment, an argument not raised at trial.

The Court of Appeal declined to entertain the entrapment argument, finding that the Crown would be procedurally prejudiced as they were deprived of the opportunity to lead evidence on the bona fide inquiry test at trial.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument regarding wilful blindness and found no error in principle or unfitness in the sentence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal sentence was granted but the sentence appeal was also dismissed.

The applicants, landowners adjacent to a proposed private racetrack development, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the intervener from proceeding with construction pending the determination of their application for mandamus against the Minister of Environment and Climate Change under the Species at Risk Act to protect Bank Swallow habitat.

The Court dismissed the motion, finding the applicants had not established irreparable harm with clear and convincing evidence, as there was no imminent risk of destruction of critical habitat before the mandamus application was heard, and the balance of convenience favoured the intervener, a private landowner with valid provincial and municipal approvals.

The Court considered whether a person charged under Alberta securities legislation carrying a maximum sentence of imprisonment of five years less a day, plus potential substantial fines, was entitled to a jury trial under s. 11(f) of the Charter.

The lower courts held that this penalty structure did not trigger the constitutional jury right.

The Court agreed substantially with the majority below and held that the appellant was not entitled to a trial by jury.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.