S. Ronald Fainstein

The Crown appealed a decision of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, agreeing with the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in applying the Debot factors to find that the police officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the search.

The judgments below were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Applying the principles from Collins, Sieben, and Hamill, the Court found no error in the lower court's exercise of its jurisdiction to review the trial judge's finding under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The appeal was dismissed from the bench.

The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in a controlled drug (amphetamine) to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Court of Appeal's decision to uphold the trial judgment.

The applicants sought judicial release or a stay of sentence pending the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment on their appeals.

They had previously applied for judicial release to the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, which was dismissed by a chambers judge and a review was declined by the Chief Justice.

Assuming it had jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to grant the orders sought, noting that the lower court's denial was based on the specific circumstances of the applicants rather than a general rule against release upon a reserve of judgment.

The appellants appealed a Federal Court of Appeal decision ordering the return of seized fish or its proceeds to the respondent.

The masters of foreign ships were convicted of illegal fishing, fined, and a portion of their cargo was ordered forfeited.

After paying their fines, the owners claimed the return of the remaining seized fish, arguing that under s. 6(9) of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, the 'final conclusion of the proceedings' occurred at the end of the trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the phrase 'final conclusion of the proceedings' encompasses the entire appellate process, allowing the Crown to retain the seized goods until all appeals are exhausted.

The accused was acquitted of conspiring to import a narcotic.

The Crown appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused's membership in the conspiracy was required before the conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule could apply.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the hearsay exception may be relied upon once direct evidence against the accused raises a probability of their membership in the conspiracy.

The trial judge's instruction imposed a higher burden of proof on the Crown than required by law.

The appellants were acquitted at trial of unlawfully importing heroin.

The trial judge found a reasonable doubt regarding the nature of the substance because the analyst had compared the suspect substance's graph to a standard graph of unknown preparation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, assuming the standard graph was prepared in Ottawa.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appellants' appeal and restored the acquittals.

The Court held that the trial judge's factual determination regarding the analyst's procedure could not be overturned on a Crown appeal limited to questions of law.

Furthermore, the analyst's reliance on an unverified standard graph constituted 'evidence to the contrary' under s. 9 of the Narcotic Control Act, which was capable of rebutting the presumption created by the certificate of analysis.

The appellant was convicted of both conspiracy to traffic in heroin and the substantive offence of trafficking in heroin.

He appealed his trafficking conviction, arguing that under the Kienapple principle, he could not be convicted of both offences since the trafficking transaction occurred during the conspiracy period and involved his co-conspirator.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Kienapple principle against multiple convictions did not apply because the two offences were not for the same cause or matter and did not involve the same elements.

The conspiracy charge depended on proof of a prior illegal agreement, which transcended the substantive trafficking transaction.