Canada Case Law

Chijindu v. Law Society of Ontario

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court held that the SCJ must decline to entertain a collateral attack on the Tribunal's revocation decision once statutory remedies and appeals have been exhausted; s.24(1) of the Charter does not permit reopening the matter in the SCJ to obtain reinstatement of the appellant's licence and the remedy sought was not available, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Judicial review
• Collateral attack
• Reinstatement of licence
• Exhaustion of remedies
• Section 24(1) charter
• Professional misconduct

Read case analysis

R. v. Hannaford

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge did not err in law or fact; the "one plus one" policy was not misapplied, the appellant's utterance did not alter the emergency faced by the officer who observed the appellant armed with a knife, and the appellant failed to prove the officer's use of serious force was unreasonable in all the circumstances; therefore the Charter stay was properly refused and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Use of force
• Excessive force
• Police conduct
• Section 7 charter
• Section 24(1) charter
• Stay of proceedings

Read case analysis

R. v. Ali

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Application for mandamus, prohibition, and Charter relief was dismissed because prerogative relief is not available against a superior court judge.

• Mandamus
• Prohibition
• Section 24(1) charter
• Section 7 charter
• Section 11(d) charter
• Judicial jurisdiction

Read case analysis

R. v. Khamo

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court concluded that where the Crown in related prosecutions concedes that the redacted ITO and judicial summaries are inadequate to permit meaningful challenge and cannot disclose more without compromising confidential informants, fairness requires a stay under s.24(1); materials from related proceedings may be admitted on appeal in the interest of justice, and therefore the convictions based on the challenged authorizations must be quashed and the prosecution stayed.

Source excerpt

• Communications interception
• Judicial authorization
• Garofoli motion
• Judicial summaries
• Redaction of ito
• Confidential informants

Read case analysis

R. v. Mohammed

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Court found a breach of s.7 due to late and previously lost disclosure; the breach resulted from gross complacency and negligence by police but not deliberate or malicious misconduct. An adjournment previously granted provided adequate remediation of prejudice, and exclusion of evidence or a stay was not warranted because the unfairness was remediable and society's interest in a trial on the merits outweighed the concerns. Trial to proceed as rescheduled on July 13, 2023.

Source excerpt

• Section 7 charter
• Section 24(1) charter
• Disclosure obligations
• Adjournment vs exclusion of evidence
• Abuse of process

Read case analysis

U.S.A. v. Cuppen

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Dispute arose in an extradition case over disclosure of communications concerning supplementary identification evidence. The court found no air of reality to support disclosure and dismissed the application.

• Disclosure
• Costs
• Abuse of process
• Section 8 charter
• Section 24(1) charter
• Adjournment

Read case analysis

R. v. Villanti

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Appeal dismissed. The trial delay (~60.5 months) exceeded the 30‑month Jordan ceiling and the Crown failed to demonstrate that the 11‑month adjournment was attributable to exceptional circumstances sufficient to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness; systemic judicial resource shortages and triage decisions did not justify deducting the full period, and the transitional exception did not apply to the post‑Jordan delay in this case.

Source excerpt

• Unreasonable delay
• Section 11(b) charter
• Section 24(1) charter
• Jordan framework
• Transitional exceptional circumstances
• Institutional delay

Read case analysis

Whaling v. Canada

Court

Federal Court

Federal Court certified a proposed class action over AEPA-related Charter damages claims and rejected the Crown’s proposed extra dispositive common question.

• Charter damages
• Section 11(h) charter
• Section 24(1) charter
• Abolition of early parole act (aepa)
• Accelerated parole review (apr)
• Statute of limitations / federal courts act s.39

Read case analysis

R. v. Kang

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held that excision in a Garofoli review is “for one,” not “for all”: unconstitutionally obtained information is excised only for the accused whose rights were breached.

• Excision
• Standing
• Wiretap/part vi authorization
• Garofoli review
• Section 8 charter
• Section 24(1) charter

Read case analysis

R. v. Shaw

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

In this Jordan application, the court held the net delay stayed below the 30-month ceiling after deducting defence delay for disclosure-related steps, so the stay was refused.

• Delay/jordan framework
• Third‑party disclosure
• O'connor applications
• Section 11(b) charter
• Section 24(1) charter
• Delay-jordan-framework

Read case analysis