Tristan Desjardins

Thirty-one accused were arrested during a large-scale police operation arising from a narcotics trafficking investigation.

The appellants sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging that an accumulation of infringements of ss. 8 and 10(b) rights constituted abuse of process in the residual category under s. 7, even where certain accused were not personally victims of any individual infringement.

The Supreme Court held that all accused had standing to seek a stay under s. 24(1) provided the abusive conduct tainted the investigation or proceedings targeting them, but that the trial judge erred in finding s. 10(b) infringements without individualized analysis of each arrest, and further erred in granting a stay without first considering less drastic remedies.

New trials, including new hearings on the stay motions, were ordered for all groups.

The Crown appealed the fitness of the sentence imposed on the first respondent for child luring under s. 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, and both respondents challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences in s. 172.1(2)(a) and (b) as cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter.

The majority held that the sentencing judge committed errors in principle in imposing a five-month concurrent sentence for luring, and increased the sentence to 12 months' imprisonment to be served consecutively.

The mandatory minimum sentences of one year (indictable) and six months (summary) for child luring were found to be grossly disproportionate when applied to reasonably foreseeable offenders and declared of no force or effect under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The dissent would have upheld the mandatory minimums as constitutional.

The Crown appealed as of right on questions of law following the Quebec Court of Appeal's majority decision setting aside a manslaughter conviction of a police officer and ordering a new trial.

The majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in law by denying the accused's motion for disclosure of third-party records that met the threshold of likely relevance for full answer and defence.

The trial judge further erred in her treatment of evidence crucial to the accused and in her assessment of expert testimony concerning the accused's conduct as a police officer.

The Crown's appeal was dismissed, with two justices dissenting on both the disclosure and expert evidence issues.

The appeal addresses the governing legal test and its application to the record before the appellate court.

The Court clarifies the proper analytical framework, applies it to the disputed issues, and resolves the appeal accordingly.

The reasons emphasize principled interpretation and consistency with established jurisprudence.

The disposition determines the parties' rights on the issues raised in the appeal.

The appellant, a police officer, was convicted of obstructing justice under s. 139(2) of the Criminal Code for deliberately failing to gather evidence to lay an impaired driving charge against a fellow officer.

The appellant claimed he was exercising police discretion.

The trial judge rejected this explanation, finding the appellant acted out of favouritism.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while police possess discretion, it must be exercised honestly, transparently, and on valid grounds.

The trial judge's finding that the appellant acted with the specific intent to obstruct justice was reasonable and supported by the evidence.