Canada Case Law

R. v. Allen-Simec

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Applications dismissed. The accused failed to show a reasonable possibility that non‑production by US authorities prejudiced his ability to make full answer and defence; disclosure to date was substantial and the alleged missing material was speculative. Hearsay reliance on US law‑enforcement information in the ITOs was permissible where the RCMP used that material as a lead, corroborated it through independent Canadian investigative steps, and presented credibly based information; on the face of the ITOs an issuing judge could have been satisfied the statutory thresholds were met. No Charter…

Source excerpt

• Charter s.7
• Charter s.8
• Charter s.11(d)
• Charter s.24(1)
• Charter s.24(2)
• Stinchcombe disclosure

Read case analysis

R. v. Nowack

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Motion in a criminal appeal dismissed where the Court of Appeal held that claimed TPS privilege answered the disclosure requests and no further disclosure was ordered.

• Stinchcombe disclosure
• Fresh evidence
• Abuse of process
• Third-party privilege
• Case management
• Stinchcombe-disclosure

Read case analysis

R. v. Wiwchar

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held Project Loyalty is generally a separate third-party investigation, but its ITOs are obviously relevant and must be reviewed for possible Stinchcombe disclosure.

• Stinchcombe disclosure
• O'connor third-party disclosure
• Mcneil duty to inquire
• Obstruction of justice
• Lost evidence
• First party vs third party records

Read case analysis

R. v. Chaisson

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

On the totality of the information in the ITOs — including confidential informant reports, police database checks (PROS, CPIC, JEIN), and corroboration between sources and police inquiries — a justice of the peace could reasonably have inferred there were credible and reliable grounds to issue the warrants; cross‑examination and disclosure did not reveal material falsehoods or deliberate omissions by the affiants, therefore both the facial and sub‑facial challenges fail and the warrants and seized evidence are lawful and admissible.

Source excerpt

• S.8 charter unreasonable search
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Search warrant validity
• Facial and sub‑facial ito challenges
• Confidential informants
• Information to obtain

Read case analysis

R. v. Dick

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held the SANE report redactions were not records under the Mills regime, but the ambulance and physician redactions were medical records and not producible.

• Sexual assault
• Mills regime (ss.278.1-278.91)
• Stinchcombe disclosure
• Records production
• Expectation of privacy in medical records
• In camera production under s.278.5

Read case analysis

Brar v. British Columbia (Securities Commission)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed challenges to s. 144(2) of the Securities Act and refused broad disclosure from a BC Securities Commission investigation.

• Contempt
• Summons and compulsory testimony
• Charter s.7
• Charter s.11(d)
• S.96 constitutional protection of superior courts
• Stinchcombe disclosure

Read case analysis

Lover-Peace v. Moosavi

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a disclosure application in a malicious prosecution action, finding the requested materials were already in the plaintiff’s control or protected by privilege.

• Malicious prosecution
• Document disclosure
• Prosecutorial discretion privilege
• Stinchcombe disclosure
• Peace bond (s.810 criminal code)
• Malicious-prosecution

Read case analysis

British Columbia (Securities Commission) v. Brar

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed constitutional and disclosure applications challenging Securities Act summons-enforcement and contempt provisions, and allowed the contempt petitions to proceed.

• Contempt of court
• Statutory summons and compulsion
• Section 96 constitutional challenge
• Charter ss.7 and 11(d) issues
• Stinchcombe disclosure
• Judicial review and privative clause

Read case analysis

R. v. Alkhalil

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court upheld litigation privilege over Crown expert correspondence and materials, finding they were prepared only to assist cross-examination and would not affect sentence.

• Litigation privilege
• Work product
• Disclosure obligations
• Expert evidence
• Cross-examination
• Stinchcombe disclosure

Read case analysis

R. v. Ali

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Pre-trial disclosure application dismissed: the accused failed to show a non-speculative nexus between proposed third-party suspects and the homicide.

• Third-party suspects
• O'connor disclosure
• Stinchcombe disclosure
• Viclas
• Dna identification
• Admissibility

Read case analysis