Wayne A. Cunningham

The appellants, a corporation and its owner, appealed their convictions for tax evasion and making false statements under the Income Tax Act.

The trial judge had found that claiming the owner's son's wedding as a business expense was illegal, relying heavily on a finding that there was 'no evidence' that business associates attended the wedding.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence of the company's accountant, who testified that the owner told him many business associates were present.

This misapprehension played an essential role in the trial judge's reasoning, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his global sentence of 20 months' imprisonment for mischief, causing a disturbance, and breach of probation.

The offences occurred when the appellant made loud, anti-Muslim comments on a subway train, intimidated passengers, and refused to disembark, causing significant transit delays.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge erred by imposing consecutive sentences without reasons and failing to consider the totality principle.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that consecutive sentences were justified as the offences involved distinct legally protected interests.

Although the failure to expressly consider totality removed appellate deference, the court found the sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the appellant's extensive record, the hate-motivated nature of the offences, and the significant public disruption caused.

The Attorney General of Canada applied under s. 39(1) of the Extradition Act to transfer electronic devices seized from the respondent to the United States.

The devices were seized when the respondent was arrested under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, prior to his arrest under the Extradition Act.

The court interpreted s. 39(1) and concluded that the term 'arrest' refers only to an arrest made pursuant to the Extradition Act.

Consequently, the application to transfer the items was dismissed.