R. Posner

The applicants, charged with drug and firearms offences, brought a Charter application challenging the validity of several search warrants and production orders that stemmed from a homicide investigation.

At a preliminary stage, they sought leave to cross-examine the affiants and investigating officers, arguing that the police intentionally misled the authorizing justice by elevating one applicant to a 'suspect' without new evidence to secure a wiretap authorization.

The court granted leave to cross-examine three officers regarding the change in the applicant's suspect status, finding it could assist in determining whether police conduct subverted the preauthorization process, but denied leave to cross-examine a fourth officer whose warrants were subject only to a facial validity review.

The applicant, charged with conspiracy to commit murder, drug trafficking, and firearm possession, applied for judicial interim release.

The Crown opposed release on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found that the strict release plan, which included house arrest, electronic monitoring, and supervision by the applicant's parents, adequately addressed the secondary ground concerns.

On the tertiary ground, although the charges were extremely serious and the Crown's case appeared strong, the court held that the applicant's Type 1 diabetes placed him at higher risk of severe complications from COVID-19 in a congregate setting.

Balancing the strict release plan, the health risks, and the need to flatten the curve, the court granted the application for release.

The accused was charged with the armed robbery of a gas station.

The robber was masked, but left a palm print on the glass counter during the robbery, which was captured on video surveillance.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, specifically the palm print matched to the accused and the video showing the robber placing his hand in that exact location.

The court found that the only rational inference from the evidence was that the accused was the masked robber, and found him guilty.

The applicant sought a declaration that he was eligible for accelerated parole review (APR) because he committed his offences before Parliament abolished the APR process.

He was sentenced after the abolition came into force.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's expectation of liberty crystallized at the time of sentencing, not the time of the offence.

Because APR was already abolished when he was sentenced, the legislative change did not amount to retrospective punishment under section 11(i) of the Charter.

The offender, a tax preparer, pleaded guilty to defrauding the federal government of over $1.1 million through false expense and childcare schemes.

He personally profited by $448,000.

The Crown sought a 3-year penitentiary sentence, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation for large-scale frauds by persons in positions of trust.

The offender was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment and ordered to pay a $448,000 fine in lieu of forfeiture, with an additional 3 years consecutive in default of payment.