Canada Case Law

United States v. Barnes

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Minister's surrender decision was reasonable: he properly applied the Hurley test, acknowledged systemic racism but found the applicant did not prove on a balance of probabilities that he would be persecuted based on race, reasonably relied on information and representations from Florida and US authorities about legal protections and available medical care, and correctly concluded that surrender would not be unjust or oppressive under s.7; judicial review therefore dismissed.

Source excerpt

• S.7 charter
• Judicial review
• Racial discrimination
• Medical treatment in custody
• Postponement of surrender
• Hurley test

Read case analysis

Czech Republic v. Karicka

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Minister reasonably concluded surrender did not breach s.7 because there was no evidence of a real risk of persecution given improvements in conditions for Roma, delay was caused by the applicant absconding and did not prejudice fairness as a new trial is available, the two-year mandatory minimum with credit is not shocking to the Canadian conscience, and the Minister properly balanced personal circumstances against treaty obligations; therefore the decision fell within a range of reasonable outcomes and the judicial review is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• S.7 charter
• Mandatory minimum sentence
• Delay/prescription
• Discrimination against roma
• Abuse of process
• Standard of review - reasonableness

Read case analysis

Roberts v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal allowed; the court held it had jurisdiction and ordered production of exhibits for DNA testing to support ministerial review under Part XXI.1.

• Post-conviction disclosure
• Ministerial review (part xxi.1 criminal code)
• S.24(1) charter remedy
• S.7 charter
• Dna testing
• Miscarriage of justice

Read case analysis

United States v. Hillis

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The court held the Minister's decision to order conditional surrender was reasonable: the Minister properly considered s.7 and s.12 values, obtained reliable assurances that federal and state civil commitment would not occur, and concluded that the sentencing disparity (including a possible US 30‑year mandatory minimum) did not, in the circumstances and given treaty/comity considerations, 'shock the conscience' or render surrender unjust or oppressive under s.44(1)(a) of the Extradition Act.

Source excerpt

• Surrender
• S.7 charter
• S.12 charter
• Mandatory minimum sentences
• Civil commitment
• Double criminality

Read case analysis

R. v. Chaisson

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Applicant failed to prove state conduct that offends societal notions of fair play and decency or that would irreparably harm the integrity of the justice system; testimony of police was credible and corroborative, no evidence of collusion or bad faith, and the Piccirrilli residual-category threshold (step one) was not met, therefore stay is not warranted.

Source excerpt

• Stay of proceedings
• Abuse of process
• Search warrant
• Reasonable and probable grounds
• S.7 charter

Read case analysis

R. v. Alfred

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed leave to raise a new s. 7 Charter challenge to s. 742.1(c) on sentence appeal, finding no sufficient record or justice-based exception.

• Conditional sentence
• S.742.1(c) criminal code
• S.718.2(e) criminal code
• S.7 charter
• Leave to raise new issue on appeal
• Gladue factors

Read case analysis

R. v. Hersi

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Destruction of the undercover officer's text messages constituted a s.7 breach because a reasonable officer would have preserved all communications and the Crown failed to show absence of unacceptable negligence; however the prejudice was not such as to warrant a stay and the appropriate remedy was a lost-evidence jury instruction; the trial judge correctly instructed on the actus reus of attempt and the sentence (consecutive five-year maximum terms resulting in a total global sentence reflecting denunciation and deterrence, with parole ineligibility of one-half) was fit and is therefore uphe…

Source excerpt

• Attempt
• Counselling
• Lost evidence
• Disclosure obligations (stinchcombe)
• S.7 charter
• S.24(1) remedy

Read case analysis

R. v. Desjarlais

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Crown’s appeal was allowed. The court set aside a judicial stay entered during a bail hearing, finding the Provincial Court lacked jurisdiction to grant it.

• Judicial interim release
• Stay of proceedings
• Abuse of process
• Charter remedies
• Competent jurisdiction
• S.24(1) charter

Read case analysis

R. v. Jageshur

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments, concluding the appellant failed to prove deliberate misconduct or intentional nondisclosure such that abuse of process or a stay was warranted; the sentencing judge did not err in principle or in the exercise of discretion concerning sentence length and delayed parole eligibility, so the conviction and sentence were maintained (leave to appeal sentence granted but sentence appeal dismissed).

Source excerpt

• Reverse sting
• Abuse of process
• Disclosure
• S.7 charter
• S.11(b) delay
• Possession for the purpose of trafficking

Read case analysis

R. v. Sarrazin

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Appeal dismissed: trial judge did not err in declining a juror inquiry because the jury withdrew its note and an inquiry would risk breaching jury secrecy; identification directions were adequate and appropriately case‑specific; Crown closing remarks were not prejudicial and were effectively cured by the trial judge's instruction; the trial judge properly exercised discretion in refusing a mistrial.

Source excerpt

• Juror bias and inquiry
• Jury secrecy
• Identification evidence
• In‑dock identification
• Mistrial and prosecutorial comment
• Abuse of process

Read case analysis