Canada Case Law

R. v. Grant

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Because subsequent related proceedings resulted in concessions and stays demonstrating that the accused could not make full answer and defence due to withheld ITO material, and because that material constitutes fresh evidence affecting the integrity of the criminal process, the appeal must be allowed; the conviction is set aside, a new trial ordered and a stay entered on that new trial.

Source excerpt

• Possession of firearm
• Search and seizure
• Informant privilege
• Disclosure obligations
• Garofoli application
• Fresh evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Haevischer

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court held that criminal applications should be summarily dismissed only if manifestly frivolous. The stay applications here should have gone to a voir dire.

• Summary dismissal
• Abuse of process
• Stay of proceedings
• Fair trial
• Case management
• Conditions of confinement

Read case analysis

Capital City News Group Ltd. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a media applicant’s motion to vary sealing orders so counsel could review unredacted criminal-investigation materials on undertakings.

• Sealing orders
• Publication bans
• Dagenais/mentuck test
• Public interest privilege
• Informant privilege
• Open court principle

Read case analysis

R. v. Orr

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Orr’s application for further disclosure about a police officer’s later misconduct investigation, finding no reasonable possibility it would assist his appeal.

• Search warrant
• Arrest
• Fresh evidence
• Disclosure obligations
• Informant privilege
• Mcneil disclosure

Read case analysis

Martin v. Canada (Minister of Justice)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld the Minister’s surrender order, finding the decision reasonable despite claims of abuse of process, mental-health risk, and Métis heritage concerns.

• Abuse of process
• S.7 principles of fundamental justice
• S.6(1) mobility rights
• Solitary confinement/segregation
• Gladue factors
• Ministerial discretion

Read case analysis

R. v. Thompson

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The judicial summary, together with the unredacted material and evidence from cross‑examinations, provided the appellant a meaningful basis to mount a sub‑facial challenge; the application judge correctly dismissed the challenge and properly exercised discretion in refusing to appoint amicus curiae because it was unnecessary in the circumstances; there was no basis to overturn the decision and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• S.8 charter
• Search warrants
• Confidential informant
• Garofoli step six review
• Amicus curiae appointment
• Informant privilege

Read case analysis

R. v. Robertson

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed an application for in camera review of unredacted informant materials, holding the defence had not met the relevance threshold and that informant privilege barred disclosure.

• Search warrant challenge
• Garofoli hearing
• Disclosure (stinchcombe)
• Informant privilege
• Ito accuracy
• S.24(2) exclusion analysis

Read case analysis

Iser v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court ordered expanded disclosure and further discovery in a prison-assault case, rejecting overbroad privilege claims but imposing confidentiality safeguards.

• Discovery
• Public interest privilege
• Informant privilege
• Confidentiality orders
• Examination for discovery
• List of documents

Read case analysis

R. v. Podolski

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Crown’s application was allowed and appeal grounds about off-the-record informant-privilege hearings were struck because the accused lacked standing to challenge first-stage rulings.

• Informant privilege
• Standing to appeal
• In camera/ex parte proceedings
• Abuse of process
• Disclosure obligations
• Innocence at stake exception

Read case analysis

Ontario (Provincial Police) v. Mosher

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court exercised its discretion to decide the moot appeal and dismissed it: while a preliminary inquiry judge has authority to issue subpoenas duces tecum to compel attendance and to bring documents, a subpoena does not itself authorize production or disclosure to a party; production of third‑party records or documents not in Crown possession must be sought under the O'Connor/McNeil regime before the trial judge (or superior court), and attempting to circumvent that procedure via subpoena at preliminary inquiry exceeds the inquiry judge's jurisdiction.

Source excerpt

• Subpoena duces tecum
• Confidential informants
• Informant privilege
• Stinchcombe disclosure
• O'connor/mcneil third party records
• Mootness doctrine

Read case analysis