Ron Marzel

The accused applied for further disclosure to challenge the validity of search warrants executed at a storefront cannabis dispensary and his residence.

The requested disclosure included police notes, communications records, occurrence reports involving an alleged confidential informant, and portions of a police manual regarding confidential informer status.

The applicant argued the materials were necessary to challenge the credibility of the affiant officer and to support cross‑examination regarding the issuance of the warrants.

The court held that even if some affidavit information were inaccurate or incomplete, the remaining uncontested information independently satisfied the statutory preconditions for issuing the warrants.

As a result, the credibility of the affiant was not material and the requested disclosure was neither relevant nor necessary to permit full answer and defence.

The respondents challenged the constitutionality of three Criminal Code provisions relating to prostitution: operating a common bawdy-house, living on the avails of prostitution, and communicating for the purpose of prostitution.

The application judge struck down all three provisions as violating section 7 of the Charter.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the striking down of the bawdy-house provision (suspended for 12 months) and read in an exploitation requirement to the living on the avails provision.

However, the Court of Appeal reversed the application judge's decision on the communicating provision, finding it did not violate the principles of fundamental justice and was a justified limit on freedom of expression, binding the lower court to the Supreme Court's previous decision in the Prostitution Reference.

The appellants, organizations promoting traditional conceptions of morality, sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application challenging the constitutionality of prostitution provisions in the Criminal Code.

The motion judge dismissed their motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred, noting the appellants had a real, substantial, and identifiable interest and an important perspective distinct from the parties.

The appeal was allowed and the motion to intervene was granted.

At a pre-hearing regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend a liquor licence, the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario ordered mutual disclosure between the Registrar and the Licensee.

Both parties were ordered to provide will-say statements and other required disclosure ten days prior to the scheduled hearing date.

The applicants, a pharmacist and his patients, brought a motion for an interim stay of the Executive Officer's decision to terminate the pharmacy's Health Network Subscription Agreement.

The Executive Officer purported to terminate the agreement without cause under the contract, despite statutory provisions governing suspension for cause.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the statutory framework displaced the contractual right to terminate.

Finding that the pharmacy would suffer irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured the patients' need for uninterrupted service, the court granted the interim stay, holding that the Proceedings Against the Crown Act did not preclude enjoining a Crown servant from exceeding statutory authority.