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 dismissed PacNet’s disclosure application and granted a sending order under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, with exclusions and return conditions.
Disclosure application dismissed in MLA forfeiture proceedings. The Court held Stinchcombe-style criminal disclosure does not apply to s. 9.4 and s. 462.42 relief from forfeiture.
Disclosure application in an extradition case dismissed. The court held the Larosa test governed, not O’Connor, and the requested records were not shown likely relevant.
B.C. Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal from a MLAT sending order, holding the applicants had not shown a meritorious question of law on cross-examination, warrant validity, or transfer terms.
The application judge's decision was made under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and s.35 governs appeals requiring leave on questions of law alone; the criticisms raised by the applicant attack factual and credibility findings and do not raise pure questions of law; references to Criminal Code provisions in s.9.4(9) do not convert the proceeding into one under the Criminal Code for appeal as of right; the application judge properly treated pleadings as demonstrating lack of corroboration rather than as evidence, properly assessed the Sedona Trust as not establishing a 2012…
Source excerpt
The court ordered production of scanned Butler Box documents from the Competition Bureau in this civil forfeiture case, holding the MLAT process did not bar disclosure of copies.
The court granted a sending order under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act for non-privileged seized materials, while rejecting most proposed limits on use and scope.
Disclosure application in an extradition case dismissed because the applicant failed to show the material likely made the ROC and SROC manifestly unreliable or supported abuse of process.
The court vacated evidence-gathering orders under the MLACMA after France withdrew its request. The respondents’ claimed immunity did not prevent vacatur.
The court dismissed an application for disclosure and a stay in a foreign forfeiture enforcement case, holding that s. 9.4 of the MLAT Act required no pre-filing notice.
Explore more
