Canada Case Law

R. v. Maric

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court upheld the application judge's factual findings and discretionary rulings: the issuing justices had a basis to authorize the initial wiretap and the reauthorization (including reasonable identification of 'Marco'); errors in ITOs were good-faith and properly amplified rather than excised; appellants lacked standing or an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in several contested locations; lost third-party surveillance video did not establish an unacceptable breach of disclosure or s.7 rights; accordingly the appeals were dismissed and the contested evidence admissible.

Source excerpt

• S.8 charter reasonable expectation of privacy
• S.24(2) exclusionary remedy (grant test)
• Part vi wiretap authorizations
• General warrant and tracking warrant validity
• Confidential informant reliability and corroboration
• Standing and third-party/excision (chang)

Read case analysis

R. v. Masci

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge did not err in her Grant analysis; the one-year delay in filing the s.489.1 report was explained as officer oversight which reduced the seriousness of the breach, the impact on the appellant's Charter interests was limited because the shotgun could not lawfully be returned and the items were required for trial, and on balance the Grant factors favoured admission of the evidence, so the s.24(2) application was properly dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Search and seizure
• S.489.1 criminal code reporting
• Section 8 charter
• Section 24(2) charter
• Grant analysis
• Exclusion of evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Barra

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court allowed the appeal because the trial judge erred in refusing to declare a mistrial for late Crown disclosure: the delayed and piecemeal disclosure concerning a critical, indicted Crown witness (Berini), including communications and undertakings with Crown counsel and evidence challenging a key defence exhibit, gave rise to a reasonable possibility of affecting the outcome or overall fairness and undermined integrity of the process; exclusion of reply evidence was inadequate; convictions were set aside and a new trial ordered. The Court otherwise upheld the application judge's s.11(b…

Source excerpt

• Disclosure (stinchcombe)
• Unreasonable delay s.11(b)
• Territorial jurisdiction
• Conspiracy law
• Mens rea for cfpoa
• Principle of specialty

Read case analysis

Chinese Social Development Society v. The Vancouver Chinese Public School

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed leave to appeal from a chambers order for vacant possession, holding the proper remedy was reconsideration under Rule 22-1(3).

• Vacant possession
• Reconsideration under rule 22-1(3)
• Failure to appear at chambers hearing
• Leave to appeal denied
• Costs assessment
• Vacant-possession

Read case analysis

Yakoubi v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)

Court

Federal Court

Judicial review was allowed because the record did not adequately prove effective translation or meaningful access to counsel during immigration enforcement interviews.

• Right to counsel
• Right to interpreter/translation
• Procedural fairness
• Exclusion order
• Detention
• Procedural-fairness

Read case analysis

T.N. v. Letcher

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court refused to order further particulars and dismissed the Crown’s adjournment request as premature, with liberty to renew after discovery.

• Duty of care
• Particulars
• Adjournment
• Oral discovery
• Prisoner treatment
• Trial management

Read case analysis

Henry v. British Columbia

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held the City of Vancouver generally had no possession, control, or power over VPD records for Rule 7-1 disclosure, but must amend its list to reflect certain admissions.

• Wrongful conviction damages
• Disclosure and discovery
• Possession/control/power over third party records
• Municipal liability for police
• Charter s.7, s.10, s.11(d)
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

Magas v. Pasanen

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's findings that the police and Crown acted reasonably were supported by admissible evidence (including delivery of a letter and the May 28, 1999 incident) and there was no palpable and overriding error of fact or reversible error of law; accordingly the appellant's claims for negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false imprisonment and Charter breaches fail.

Source excerpt

• Negligent investigation
• Malicious prosecution
• Abuse of process
• False imprisonment
• Charter breaches
• Criminal harassment

Read case analysis

Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

A majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the existence of a tort of negligent police investigation (upholding Beckstead), applied the Anns/Cooper framework, held there were reasonable and probable grounds and no malice in the police conduct in this record, and dismissed the appellant's claims for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation; trial judge's findings of credibility were not palpably wrong.

Source excerpt

• Malicious prosecution
• Negligent investigation
• Duty of care
• Reasonable and probable grounds
• Eyewitness identification
• Limitations

Read case analysis

R. v. Branton

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court dismissed the Crown's appeal and upheld the motions judge: the affidavits supporting the three search warrants failed to provide full, frank and fair disclosure and contained misleading/irrelevant material; the warrants were overbroad and exceeded the authority in s.487(1)(b); and s.9(1)(c) of the Radiocommunication Act is ambiguous and, when interpreted in favour of the accused, did not establish a known offence for the respondents' conduct, justifying quashing the warrants and ordering return of seized property.

Source excerpt

• Search warrants
• Unreasonable search and seizure
• Radiocommunication act s.9(1)(c)
• Prerogative relief for return of seized property
• Full, frank and fair disclosure
• Over‑seizure

Read case analysis