S.R. Fainstein

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 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.