25 Mar 2021
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's challenge depended on overturning the Court of Appeal's clear adverse credibility findings, which lacked sufficient prospects of success, and because the contention of public importance collapsed if the factual challenge failed.
26 Nov 2020
The Court found the guilty pleas were voluntary and informed, rejected the appellant's claim of undue pressure by counsel, concluded the change to guilty pleas was prompted by a substantially improved Crown offer and the absence of any tenable defence, and dismissed the appeal against conviction.
3 Aug 2020
The application for leave to extend time was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a real risk of miscarriage of justice: counsel's conduct was proper, the applicant had adequate time and advice to accept the sentence indication, the Crown case was strong and the factual record supported convictions, and deportation concerns did not establish a miscarriage of justice.
24 Feb 2015
The Court dismissed the application for disclosure of Crown counsel's file notes. It held that s56 is not an appropriate basis to treat communications with opposing counsel as preparatory-materials privilege, that the correspondence had a limited waiver but that confidentiality of counsel-to-counsel plea discussions should be protected through s69 public interest balancing in these circumstances, and that speculative relevance of unseen notes did not overcome the public interest in preserving confidentiality.
18 Aug 2011
The defendant failed to demonstrate an identifiable, non‑speculative arguable defence that would make the requested discovery necessary; documents sought would largely be privileged and the notice of opposition lacked requisite particularity; Oceanlaw/M. Sullivan did not act for the defendant and there was insufficient basis to debar them or to conclude they may be required to give contentious evidence; consequently discovery and debarment applications were dismissed, the freezing order was varied to permit a $30,000 advance secured by first mortgage, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff o…