Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal in R. v. Khodayar, holding that Schertzer governed and that s. 13 did not protect the transcripts.
Court of Appeal set aside a Rule 30.10 production order against Tribunals Ontario, finding the requested tribunal records were not shown to be probative or necessary.
The Court dismissed the appeal: the authorizing officer had objectively reasonable and probable grounds for the warrantless arrest based on a corroborated Crime Stoppers tip and surveillance; the initial 47‑minute delay in facilitating counsel was reasonable in all the circumstances; although the trial judge erred in parts of his s.24(2) assessment of seriousness, a fresh balancing of Grant factors still favoured admission because the impact on the accused was minimal and the drug evidence was reliable and central to the Crown's case.
Source excerpt
The court held that the independence of the Bar is an unwritten constitutional principle but that principle does not constitutionally mandate a specific model of self-governance (majority-elected-lawyer boards). Bill 21, although a significant departure from historical self-regulation, does not in its provisions or cumulative effect improperly undermine lawyer independence, is intra vires provincial powers under ss.92(13) and (14), and does not violate the Charter sections alleged by the plaintiffs; therefore the actions challenging Bill 21 are dismissed.
Source excerpt
Cumulative procedural errors — summary denial of the March 6 request without reasons, proceeding ex parte on March 7 without adequate inquiry or justification, and continuing the trial after March 8 rather than declaring a mistrial — deprived the accused of a fair trial; the unfairness is prejudicial and not susceptible to cure under s.686(1)(b); convictions are set aside and a new trial ordered.
Source excerpt
The application to dismiss is denied because it would be inappropriate at the interlocutory stage to make definitive findings on whether the plaintiffs' OSINT tactics breached privacy or constituted abuse of process where parallel claims exist; interests of justice require resolution on a full evidentiary record at trial to avoid fettering the trial judge and creating inconsistent findings.
Source excerpt
The court held that although there was an uninformed and therefore invalid consent to an on‑scene cursory viewing of the tablet (s.8 breach), the breach was of limited seriousness, the tablet had been voluntarily handed over, reasonable and probable grounds to arrest existed prior to viewing, the warrants (July 8 and August 11, 2022 ITOs) were valid after appropriate excisions and amplification, the forensic analyst’s discovery and reporting of items outside the date range did not amount to an unlawful sharing or warrantless search, and under the Grant balancing the tablet data and related ev…
Source excerpt
On the totality of the Amended ITO — including two confidential informants whose prior reliability and corroboration were described, contemporaneous surveillance showing repeated short-duration visits consistent with trafficking, a neighbour's letter, a Crime Stoppers tip, prior police encounters placing the accused at the residence, and observations on September 17, 2020 of the accused entering with a key and individuals smoking a substance consistent with fentanyl — a issuing judicial justice of the peace could reasonably have found that reasonable and probable grounds existed to issue the…
Source excerpt
The Court has no jurisdiction under s.684 of the Criminal Code because the habeas corpus proceedings and related appeal are civil in nature (challenging prison administration and parole-related decisions rather than the validity of the warrant of committal); there is no statutory or rule-based authority for a justice of this Court to appoint state-funded counsel in a civil appeal; G.(J.) is distinguishable and does not authorize appointment here; accordingly the application for appointment of counsel is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held Newfoundland and Labrador’s COVID-19 travel restrictions limited Charter mobility rights, but upheld them as justified under s. 1.
Explore more
