Canada Case Law

R. v. Carvery

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court held the arrest and search were lawful: police had authority under the Warrant of Apprehension and, independently, had reasonable and probable grounds under s.495 Criminal Code (for at least simple possession and reasonably for trafficking) to arrest and search the vehicle console; any presumed Charter breach would not justify exclusion under s.24(2); the 49g of crack cocaine was admissible and, on the totality of the evidence, the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s.5(2) CDSA.

Source excerpt

• Section 8 charter (unreasonable search)
• Section 9 charter (arbitrary detention)
• Section 24(2) charter (exclusion of evidence)
• Warrant of apprehension (ccra)
• Warrantless arrest (s.495 criminal code)
• Possession for purpose of trafficking (s.5(2) cdsa)

Read case analysis

Inlakhana v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion judge did not err: there was no evidence establishing a breached standard of care for the 43‑day processing delay and the delay was not contrary to s.7 because the Parole Board's statutorily mandated review justified the time taken; however the Court of Appeal clarified the summary judgment only disposed of the stand‑alone claims about the 43‑day implementation delay and did not extinguish broader claims relating to the full 26‑month overdetention. Costs awarded to respondent.

Source excerpt

• Section 7 liberty
• Accelerated parole review
• Duty of care/negligence
• False imprisonment
• Damages
• Statutory process for parole

Read case analysis

R. v. Elder

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court acquitted Wilfred Ernest Elder on Count 2, finding the Crown had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he failed to attend counselling with a mental health professional.

• Breach of long‑term supervision order
• Mens rea (general intent)
• Counselling vs programming
• Proof beyond reasonable doubt
• Parole board/ltso procedure
• Long-term-supervision-order

Read case analysis

Dhaliwal v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a petition challenging CSC’s refusal to refer an inmate for accelerated parole, holding the provincial superior court lacked jurisdiction.

• Accelerated parole
• Abolition of early parole act (aepa)
• Jurisdiction
• Habeas corpus
• Charter s.11(i) retroactivity
• Judicial review

Read case analysis

Lapple v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The abolition of APR by the AEPA as applied to offenders who committed offences before but were convicted and sentenced after the AEPA resulted in an appreciable increase in the punishment they would face compared to the regime in place at the time of their offences, thereby violating s.11(i) of the Charter; that infringement is not justified under s.1, and affected appellants are entitled to the APR regime that previously applied.

Source excerpt

• Charter s.11(i) — protection against retrospective increase in punishment
• Section 1 justification
• Abolition of early parole act (aepa)
• Accelerated parole review (apr)
• Habeas corpus and certiorari
• Judicial review of parole decisions

Read case analysis

Whaling v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The court held that the retrospective repeal of accelerated parole review was additional punishment under s. 11(h) and was not justified under s. 1.

• Section 11(h) charter - double jeopardy
• Retrospective legislation
• Accelerated parole review (apr)
• Section 1 charter justification
• Parole eligibility as punishment
• Charter-rights

Read case analysis

Gosselin v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a parole non-association condition, refused fresh evidence, applied reasonableness review, and rejected Charter challenges.

• Non-association condition
• Conditional release
• Standard of review
• Fresh evidence on judicial review
• Section 7 charter
• Section 1 charter

Read case analysis

Canada (Attorney General) v. Coscia

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Board's persistent use of ambiguous terms that could lead an inmate to admit participation or membership in a criminal organization, without appreciating that such admissions can carry criminal or administrative consequences, constituted a breach of procedural fairness; the applications Judge correctly found unfairness and the Appeal Division decision was rightly quashed and a new hearing ordered. De Luca is distinguishable on the facts and statutory basis.

Source excerpt

• Procedural fairness
• Standard of review
• Criminal organization membership
• Risk assessment
• Accelerated parole review

Read case analysis

Ng v. Canada

Court

Federal Court

Judicial review of a National Parole Board appeal decision was dismissed. The Court upheld the Board’s broader view of “society,” found no Charter breach, and said programming complaints belonged to CSC.

• Judicial review
• Standard of review
• Parole
• Statutory interpretation
• Charter sections 7,15,27
• Programming/accessibility

Read case analysis

Hudon c. Canada (Procureur Général)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed Richard Hudon's judicial review of a parole decision, finding waiver of natural justice objections, no reasonable bias, and no disclosure breach.

• Judicial review
• Natural justice
• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Disclosure of evidence
• Adjournment under regulations
• Judicial-review

Read case analysis