Sébastien Lafrance

Canada Bread Company Limited pleaded guilty to four counts of price-fixing under the Competition Act.

The offences involved agreements with Weston Food Canada Inc. to increase wholesale fresh commercial bread prices, impacting millions of consumers.

The court accepted a joint submission for a total fine of $50 million, allocated across the four counts.

The decision considered aggravating factors such as high planning and coordination, and mitigating factors including the company's cooperation with the Competition Bureau, change in ownership, and implementation of a compliance program.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives, ensuring the fine was significant enough to eliminate profit and not merely a "cost of doing business."

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking and proceeds of crime, arguing the trial judge erred in her analysis of circumstantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapplied the analytical framework by examining evidence in a piecemeal fashion, scrutinizing individual pieces against a reasonable doubt standard, and requiring the Crown to negate speculative inferences.

The court held that the trial judge failed to consider the cumulative effect of the evidence as a whole and that alternative inferences inconsistent with guilt must be reasonable, not merely speculative.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for importation and possession of over 100 kilograms of heroin and possession of approximately $650,000 as proceeds of crime.

The Crown's case was based on evidence from a controlled delivery of heroin, authorized searches of storage units, and testimony from a courier.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: inadequate jury instructions regarding identification evidence, improper qualification of an expert witness regarding FINTRAC reports, and improper curtailment of cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding the trial judge's rulings were appropriate and the Crown's case was overwhelming.

The applicant sought an order compelling the trial judge to produce his personal working copy of the Crown's section 11(b) response materials, alleging they might differ from the copies provided to the defence and could establish bias.

Alternatively, the applicant sought a stay of proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding the request was speculative and amounted to a fishing expedition without any air of reality.

The court suggested the applicant obtain the materials directly from the Crown to complete the appeal record.

Ms. Fairbarn brought a second Rowbotham application for state-funded counsel after her initial application was denied.

The court found a material change in circumstances, including her loss of employment and a formal separation agreement providing only for subsistence.

The court determined that Fairbarn was indigent and could not obtain private counsel, and that representation was essential for a fair trial.

A conditional stay of proceedings was ordered until the Attorney General provided funding for legal counsel, citing violations of Charter sections 7 and 11(d).

The appellant, William Mori, appealed convictions and sentences for income tax evasion and making false statements under the Income Tax Act.

The trial judge found Mori guilty of evading tax for three years, imposing consecutive four-month imprisonment terms and fines.

Mori argued errors in declining to exclude evidence obtained during a tax audit and in finding the requisite mens rea, and that the sentence was unfit.

The appeal court upheld the trial judge's findings on the audit's predominant purpose, concluding it was a civil audit until specific evidence of all invoices was received, and rejected Mori's "natural person" tax protestor theory as a valid defence to mens rea.

The court also found no errors in principle in the sentencing, affirming the 12-month imprisonment and fines, emphasizing general and specific deterrence against tax evasion, particularly in light of the growing "natural person" movement.