Susanne Boucher

The appellant challenged his conviction on the basis that a delay of over three years infringed the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The court held that, despite moderate complexity, the overall delay became unreasonable where the accused consistently took proactive steps to expedite trial and did not cause delay.

It found that delay attributable to co-accused and two adjournments required a more proactive Crown response, including potential severance and earlier date management.

The conviction was set aside and a stay of proceedings was entered.

The police suspected the accused of operating a marijuana grow operation and requested the electric utility company to install a digital recording ammeter (DRA) on the power line to his home without a warrant.

The DRA data showed a cyclical pattern of electricity use consistent with a grow operation, which the police used to obtain a search warrant.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the DRA data, given the nature of the information revealed and the regulatory scheme permitting the utility to disclose customer information to police.

The appeal was allowed and the convictions were restored.

The appellant shot and killed a police officer during a struggle following a domestic dispute.

At trial, he admitted to the shooting but claimed it was accidental and lacked the intent for murder.

The trial judge instructed the jury on the Crown's theory, mentioning the appellant's failure to check on the officer before threatening suicide.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by suggesting the jury could infer intent from post-offence conduct.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the jury charge, read as a whole, did not contain an error of law.

The Court further held that even if an error existed, the curative proviso would apply as no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in finding the objective component of the reasonable and probable grounds standard for arrest was satisfied.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, which included dated information from police and the appellant's presence in a hotel room where drugs were likely being used or sold, as well as his assistance in placing drugs into his car.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants were convicted of possession of heroin and marihuana for the purpose of trafficking after drugs were found during a warrantless search of a family-visit trailer at Collins Bay Penitentiary.

They appealed, arguing the search violated their s. 8 Charter rights, the proceedings were unreasonably delayed, and lost videotape evidence impaired their defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the family-visit trailer constituted a 'cell' under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, making the warrantless search lawful.

The court also rejected the delay and lost evidence arguments, and upheld the sentence imposed on the appellant husband.

The young person appealed his conviction for importing cocaine.

He argued he was an unwilling dupe of his mother and did not know the drugs were in his suitcase.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were inadequate for failing to address this defence and for suggesting a reversal of the burden of proof.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

The appellants appealed an order upholding their committal to stand trial for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to entitle the preliminary hearing justice to infer possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The appellants were convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking following a police search of an apartment and a vehicle.

They appealed their convictions on several grounds, including the validity of the search warrant, jury instructions on the burden of proof (the W.(D.) instruction), and the reasonableness of the verdicts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the first appellant, finding the jury instructions adequate and the verdict reasonable based on the evidence found in his vehicle.

However, the Court allowed the appeal of the second appellant, concluding that the verdict was unreasonable as there was insufficient evidence connecting him to the drugs found in the apartment, especially given his acquittal on the trafficking charge.

The appellant appealed a finding that she breached a condition of her conditional sentence by failing to report to a drug rehabilitation program.

She argued the appeal was moot, the hearing did not commence within the 30-day statutory limit under s. 742.6(3) of the Criminal Code, and the judge erred in finding a breach.

The Court of Appeal held the appeal was not moot, the hearing commenced within the required time when the judge took jurisdiction, and the obligation to attend the program was continuous.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant pleaded guilty to trafficking in heroin and improper storage of a firearm, receiving an 18-month custodial sentence.

The trial judge emphasized general deterrence and held that a conditional sentence was inappropriate for heroin trafficking.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by applying a presumption against conditional sentences for drug trafficking and failing to adequately consider the appellant's significant rehabilitative progress.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was converted to an 18-month conditional sentence with strict terms.

The appellant appealed a sentence of fifteen months' imprisonment imposed after a guilty plea to production of 102 marijuana plants.

The court held that the sentence was outside the appropriate range, noting the absence of a prior record, the absence of evidence of trafficking, and recent Supreme Court of Canada guidance on conditional sentences.

Applying the principle that a conditional sentence is likely a better sanction where both punitive and restorative objectives can be achieved, the court substituted a conditional sentence of fifteen months commencing on the date of judgment.