Tanit Gilliam

The media parties sought to terminate or vary sealing orders related to Informations to Obtain (ITOs) for search warrants in a high-profile murder and terrorism case.

The Crown and the accused, Nathaniel Veltman, sought to maintain significant restrictions to protect fair trial rights and privacy.

The court applied the Sherman test, finding a serious risk to fair trial rights and privacy due to widespread pre-trial publicity.

The court ordered a publication ban on broad swathes of evidence and a limited sealing order on highly sensitive personal and graphic information, concluding these measures were necessary and proportionate to balance open court principles with fair trial rights and privacy.

This is an application by the appellant to reopen his appeal, which was previously dismissed as abandoned due to his failure to surrender into custody as required by his bail release order.

The appellant had been convicted of drug-related offences, including possession for the purpose of trafficking, and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario denied the application, finding that the appellant's explanation for his failure to surrender was problematic, his grounds of appeal were not strong, the Crown would be prejudiced by the disposal of evidence, and the principle of finality weighed against reopening the appeal.

The appellants, Vito Buffone and Jeffrey Kompon, appealed their convictions for conspiracy to import cocaine and several substantive offences following a 50-day jury trial.

The appeal raised four grounds: the admissibility and scope of analyst's certificate evidence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), the trial judge's instructions on conspiracy (specifically the three-step Carter analysis), the instructions regarding inferences to be drawn from a third party's actions concerning an encrypted cellphone, and the instructions on the substantive counts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, upholding the convictions.

The appellant, Sara Fuller, appealed her convictions on five counts of possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

The appeal challenged the validity of the search warrant that led to the discovery of the drugs, arguing insufficient grounds and staleness of information.

The appellant also raised an issue with the trial judge's reference to her failure to testify.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there were sufficient grounds for the search warrant and that the two-month delay did not render the information stale given the nature of the stolen goods.

The court also concluded that the trial judge's reference to the appellant's failure to testify, while not ideal, did not undermine the conviction as it was intended to demonstrate the absence of alternative reasonable inferences in a circumstantial case.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of importing cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine after bricks of cocaine were found in an airport washroom.

A co-accused had previously pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that they must accept the existence of the conspiracy based on the co-accused's guilty plea, and by failing to provide a proper Carter instruction regarding the use of co-conspirators' acts and declarations.

The Court of Appeal agreed that both instructions were erroneous and rendered the trial unfair on the conspiracy count.

However, the Court applied the curative proviso to uphold the importing conviction, finding the evidence on that count overwhelming.

The conspiracy conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellants, John Disher and Reana Weaver, appealed their sentences for drug trafficking offences involving fentanyl and carfentanil.

Disher was originally sentenced to 12 years and Weaver to 7 years.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider Disher's rehabilitative prospects and by failing to properly apply the principles of restraint and rehabilitation for Weaver, a youthful, first-time Indigenous offender.

The appeals were allowed, and the sentences were reduced to 8 years for Disher and 4 years for Weaver.

The appellant failed to surrender into custody at Collins Bay Institution as required by his release order.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

He appealed both conviction and sentence.

The central issue on appeal concerned the validity of a search warrant based on information from confidential informants.

The Crown relied on redacted portions of the Information to Obtain (ITO) and invoked the "step six" procedure from R. v. Garofoli, providing the accused with a judicial summary rather than the full unredacted ITO.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the judicial summary was adequate to permit meaningful challenge to the warrant and that the warrant was validly issued.

The sentence of two years less a day was also upheld as within the appropriate range and not manifestly excessive.

The applicant, ATV Farms, sought certiorari to quash search warrants executed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and a declaration that its s. 8 Charter rights were infringed.

The CFIA had seized documents based on alleged mislabeling of produce.

The Crown opposed, arguing the matter should be heard by a trial judge if charges were laid.

The court addressed the preliminary issue of whether to hear the application at this stage, concluding that the overall interests of justice favoured allowing the application to proceed.

This decision was based on the applicant's claim of reputational and financial harm and its decision to seek only declaratory relief, not the return of seized documents, which mitigated concerns about interfering with the ongoing investigation.

The appellant appealed her conviction for importing cocaine after returning from Jamaica with approximately three kilograms of cocaine concealed in her suitcase.

The sole issue at trial was knowledge—whether the appellant knew the controlled substance was in her suitcase.

The appellant raised multiple grounds of appeal, including allegations that the Crown's closing address improperly invited speculation, that the trial judge's charge was deficient regarding good character evidence and the element of knowledge, and that the jury was left with an unbalanced view of the case.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the Crown's submissions were supported by circumstantial evidence, that the charge adequately addressed the permissible uses of character evidence in context, and that the jury received proper instructions on the burden and standard of proof.

The appellant appealed his convictions on three counts each of trafficking in crack cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime, as well as his sentence of 12 months in custody.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the seller.

The appellant challenged the photo lineup procedure on the grounds that it failed to include photos replicating distinguishing features and was not video or audiotaped.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge was cognizant of these deficiencies and properly considered them in reaching a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the undercover officer's consistent identification across three transactions over a three-week period and evidence that the appellant frequented the relevant location.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, though the Court set aside the victim surcharge and directed remittance of any payments made.

The appellant appealed his conviction for importing cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a jury trial.

The central issue at trial was whether the appellant had knowledge of 100 kg of cocaine secreted in his truck at a border crossing.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) that his section 10(b) Charter right to counsel was violated when he made an incriminating statement to CBSA agents; (2) that the trial judge erred in leaving willful blindness with the jury; and (3) that the trial judge reversed the burden of proof in her re-charge on possession.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.

The appellant Crown appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge on the respondent who pled guilty to importing hashish contrary to s. 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The trial judge had found s. 6(3)(a) of the CDSA and its combined effect with Criminal Code s. 742.1(c) to be unconstitutionally overbroad under s. 7 of the Charter, rendering the respondent eligible for a conditional sentence.

The trial judge imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day and 18 months' probation.

On appeal, the Crown conceded that given the respondent's changed circumstances, time already served, and community service completed, reincarceration was not warranted, and requested the sentence be stayed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and varied the sentence to time served, with the probation order remaining in effect.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking, challenging the trial judge's decision to dismiss his Charter application to exclude evidence obtained through general warrants issued under s. 487.01 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the investigative technique could have been authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, making the general warrant unavailable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding that the general warrant was properly issued because the investigative technique—prospective execution based on a future contingency to link drugs to the accused—was not contemplated by conventional search warrants, and there was no evasion of more stringent statutory requirements.

The appellant appealed his conviction entered by the Superior Court of Justice on March 11, 2016.

The appeal concerned the lawfulness of a police entry and search of commercial premises.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that exigent circumstances justified the police entry prior to execution of the search warrant, that the officer's evidence regarding the impracticability of obtaining a warrant in person satisfied the requirements for a telewarrant, and that any misdescription of the municipal address constituted at most a minor technical error that did not justify exclusion of evidence.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (x4) and possession of property obtained by crime, receiving a global sentence of five years and eight months.

He appealed on grounds relating to the validity of the search warrant executed at his residence, which yielded 800 grams of cocaine, 505 oxycodone pills, drug paraphernalia, and $32,880 in cash.

The trial judge dismissed the Charter s. 8 application, finding the warrant was properly issued based on a credible confidential informant's tip that was corroborated by police surveillance.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and sentence, rejecting all four grounds of appeal.

The appellant sought an order releasing audio recordings of portions of his trial that were held in camera and subject to a sealing order, as well as any exhibits filed during the in camera proceedings.

The in camera proceedings related to a pre-trial application.

The appellant had appealed his conviction and sentence, and the correctness of the trial judge's decision on the pre-trial application was at issue on the appeal from conviction.

The Court of Appeal found it was in the interests of justice to order production of the audio recordings and exhibits, as counsel required access to these materials to assess the viability of the ground of appeal and to pursue it if viable.

The appellant appealed his conviction on various drug offences, challenging the validity of a search warrant on the grounds that material misstatements and omissions were made in the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The appellant contended that the warrant breached his Charter rights under section 8.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the omissions and alleged misrepresentations were not material to the issuance of the warrant and that a reasonable inference could be drawn that drugs would be found at the residence based on police observations and evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (approximately 110 grams) and possession of proceeds of crime ($650), as well as his sentence of two years' less a day imprisonment plus three years' probation.

The main issue was whether the trial judge erred in relying on lay opinion evidence from a police officer to establish that untested substances found in a motel room were cocaine.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that based on the totality of the circumstantial evidence—including surveillance evidence, the presence of tested cocaine on co-occupants, the experienced officer's lay opinion, drug-related paraphernalia, and cash—it was open to the trial judge to conclude the substances were cocaine and that the appellant was in possession of them.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, and sought leave to appeal his sentence of five years' imprisonment less nine months' credit for restrictive bail conditions.

The appeal raised four grounds challenging the trial judge's disposition of a Garofoli application regarding the legality of a search warrant: whether the ITO established reasonable and probable grounds for a firearm offence, whether the trial judge erred in refusing leave to cross-examine the ITO affiant, whether the conditions for a telewarrant were satisfied, and whether the CI's information was sufficiently corroborated.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal.