Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Ronald Jones (respondent) (C52480; 2011 ONCA 632) Indexed As: R. v. Jones (R.)
|
|
- Doreen McKenzie
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Ronald Jones (respondent) (C52480; 2011 ONCA 632) Indexed As: R. v. Jones (R.) Ontario Court of Appeal MacPherson, Blair and Epstein, JJ.A. October 11, Summary: The police seized the accused's computer under a warrant respecting a fraud investigation. While looking for evidence of fraud, the police found images of child pornography (initial search). Without obtaining a second warrant, the police continued their search for child pornography, including looking at video files unrelated to the fraud investigation. The accused was charged with possession of child pornography. The trial judge concluded that the accused's s. 8 Charter rights were violated, the evidence should be excluded and the charges dismissed. The Crown appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the seizure of the images found in the initial search did not constitute a breach of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights. It followed that those images were admissible and no s. 24(2) issue arose with respect to them. However, the seizure of the video files containing child pornography was not authorized by the warrant, under the plain view doctrine or under s. 489 of the Criminal Code (seizure of items not specified in the warrant) and was, therefore, contrary to s. 8 of the Charter. The court, however, applying the Grant analysis, ruled that the video files should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter. In the result, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial. Civil Rights - Topic 1508 Property - Expectation of privacy - Computer files - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368]. Civil Rights - Topic 1641 Property - Search and seizure - General - The Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed the general principles underlying the protection against search and seizure offered by s. 8 of the Charter - See paragraphs 18 to 22. Civil Rights - Topic 1646 Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - The police seized the accused's computer under a warrant respecting a fraud investigation - While looking for evidence of fraud, the police found images of child pornography (initial search) - Without obtaining a second warrant, the police continued their search for child pornography, including looking at video files unrelated to the fraud investigation - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the seizure of the images found in the initial search did not constitute a breach of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights - However, the seizure of the video files containing child pornography was not authorized by the warrant, under the plain view doctrine or under s. 489 of the Criminal Code (seizure of items not specified in the warrant) and was, therefore, contrary to s. 8 of the Charter - See paragraphs 1 to 75.
2 Civil Rights - Topic 1657 Property - Search and seizure - Search with warrant - Plain view doctrine - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed whether the plain view doctrine should apply in circumstances involving a computer search under a warrant - See paragraphs 59 to 70. Civil Rights - Topic 1657 Property - Search and seizure - Search with warrant - Plain view doctrine - Section 489 of the Criminal Code authorized the seizure of things in addition to those things specified in a warrant under certain circumstances - The Ontario Court of Appeal opined that s. 489 was not a codification of the plain view doctrine - See paragraph 58. Civil Rights - Topic 1657 Property - Search and seizure - Search with warrant - Plain view doctrine - The police seized the accused's computer under a warrant respecting a fraud investigation - While looking for evidence of fraud, the police found images of child pornography (initial search) - Without obtaining a second warrant, the police continued their search for child pornography, including looking at video files unrelated to the fraud investigation - At issue was whether the police were entitled to seize the files containing child pornography under the plain view doctrine and/or s. 489 of the Criminal Code (seizure of things not specified in the warrant) - The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that the plain view doctrine and/or s. 489 justified the search and seizure of the images of child pornography found in the initial search - That seizure did not violate s. 8 of the Charter - However, the court stated that it would not extend the plain view doctrine to justify the police seizure and ensuing use by the Crown of the subsequently discovered video files - Nor did s. 489 assist in this respect - For the purpose of this case, the reach of s. 489 stopped at the discovery of the image files - Thus the seizure of the video files was contrary to s. 8 of the Charter - See paragraphs 53 to 75. Civil Rights - Topic 8368 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The police seized the accused's computer under a warrant respecting a fraud investigation - While looking for evidence of fraud, the police found images of child pornography (initial search) - Without obtaining a second warrant, the police continued their search for child pornography, including looking at video files unrelated to the fraud investigation - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the seizure of the images found in the initial search did not constitute a breach of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights - However, the seizure of the video files containing child pornography was not authorized by the warrant, under the plain view doctrine or under s. 489 of the Criminal Code (seizure of items not specified in the warrant) and was, therefore, contrary to s. 8 of the Charter - The court, applying the Grant anlaysis, ruled that the video files should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter - See paragraphs 75 to 103. Criminal Law - Topic 3045 Special powers - Search warrants - Scope of - The police seized the accused's computer under a warrant respecting a fraud investigation and found images of child pornography
3 (initial search) - Without obtaining a second warrant, the police continued their search for child pornography, including looking at video files unrelated to the fraud investigation - The Crown argued that the warrant authorized the search for evidence of child pornography as well as fraud because a computer was an indivisible object which, like pieces of physical evidence, could be tested and inspected in whatever way the police deemed necessary once lawfully seized under the warrant - The Crown argued further that the right to seize a computer would be a hollow without the ability to examine its contents - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the Crown's arguments - The court could not accept that the broad right to examine all computer contents in search of evidence of fraud pursuant to the warrant was sufficient to authorize a further search for evidence of child pornography without the police obtaining a second warrant - See paragraphs 25 to 52. Criminal Law - Topic 3045 Special powers - Search warrants - Scope of - The police seized the accused's computer under a warrant respecting a fraud investigation and found images of child pornography (initial search) - Without obtaining a second warrant, the police continued their search for child pornography, including looking at video files unrelated to the fraud investigation - At issue was whether the warrant authorized the search for child pornography - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that it did not accept "... that the right to examine the entire contents of a computer for evidence of one crime (fraud, in this case) carries with it the untrammeled right to rummage through the entire computer contents in search of evidence of another crime (possession of child pornography, in this case) without restraint - even where, as here, the warrant may properly authorize unlimited access to the computer's files and folders in order to accomplish its search objectives. A computer search pursuant to a warrant must be related to the legitimate targets respecting which the police have established reasonable and probable grounds, as articulated in the warrant" - See paragraph 42. Criminal Law - Topic 3046 Special powers - Search warrants - Validity of - General - The police seized the accused's computer under a warrant respecting a fraud investigation and found images of child pornography (initial search) - Without obtaining a second warrant, the police continued their search for child pornography, including looking at video files unrelated to the fraud investigation - The accused argued that the warrant was invalid on its face for purposes of authorizing further searches for child pornography because it did not place any time or content limitations on the search of the computer - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that warrant was not too broad - The warrant did not authorize a comprehensive review of the entire contents of the accused's computer without limitation - The warrant placed restrictions on the type of evidence that could be sought (i.e., it authorized a search and seizure in respect of fraud) - The lack of a stated time frame within which the police were entitled to examine the dated files on the computer did not affect the warrant's validity, because the warrant was quite clear and focussed with respect to the targets of the computer search - See paragraphs 23 and 24 and 29 to 34. Criminal Law - Topic 3163
4 Special powers - Power of seizure - Extent of power (incl. things not specified in warrant) - [See second and third Civil Rights - Topic 1657]. Cases Noticed: R. v. Law - see R. v Canada Inc. et al. R. v Canada Inc. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 227; 281 N.R. 267; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 270; 636 A.P.R. 270; 2002 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 14]. R. v. Weir (D.T.) (2001), 281 A.R. 333; 248 W.A.C. 333; 156 C.C.C.(3d) 188; 2001 ABCA 181, refd to. [para. 14]. R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 19]. Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 20]. R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 21]. R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13, refd to. [para. 21]. R. v. Plant (R.S.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 157 N.R. 321; 145 A.R. 104; 55 W.A.C. 104, refd to. [para. 22]. R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 4]. R. v. Du (B.B.), 2004 ABQB 849, refd to. [para. 34]. R. v. U.P.M., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253; 399 N.R. 200; 346 Sask.R. 1; 477 W.A.C. 1; 252 C.C.C.(3d) 273; 2010 SCC 8, refd to. [para. 37]. R. v. Giles, [2007] B.C.J. No (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 41]. R. v. Manley (M.) (2011), 275 O.A.C. 81; 2011 ONCA 128, refd to. [para. 44]. United States v. Williams (2010), 592 F.3d 511 (4th Cir.), cert. denied (2010), 131 S. Ct. 595; 178 L.Ed.2d 434, refd to. [para. 44]. R. v. DeJesus (N.), [2010] O.A.C. Uned. 457; 2010 ONCA 581, refd to. [para. 45]. R. v. Arp (B.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339; 232 N.R. 317; 114 B.C.A.C. 1; 186 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 45]. R. v. Jackpine (R.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 554; 347 N.R. 201; 210 O.A.C. 200, refd to. [para. 45]. R. v. Rodgers - see R. v. Jackpine (R.). R. v. Dore (D.) (2002), 162 O.A.C. 56; 166 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45]. R. v. Spindloe (M.), [2002] 5 W.W.R. 239; 207 Sask.R. 3; 247 W.A.C. 3; 154 C.C.C.(3d) 8; 2001 SKCA 58, refd to. [para. 56]. R. v. Fawthrop (L.) (2002), 161 O.A.C. 350; 166 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56]. R. v. Bottineau (E.) et al. (2011), 276 O.A.C. 173; 2011 ONCA 194, refd to. [para. 58]. R. v. Bishop (C.J.H.), 2007 ONCJ 441, refd to. [para. 59]. United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing Inc. (2009), 579 F.3d 989 (9th Cir.), revised (2010), 621 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 60]. United States v. Tamura (1982), 694 F. 2d 591 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 5]. United States v. Carey (1999), 172 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir.), refd to. [para. 69]. United States v. Turner (1999), 169 F.3d 84 (1st Cir.), refd to. [para. 69]. R. v. Harris (M.) (2007), 228 O.A.C. 241; 225 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 2007 ONCA 574, refd to. [para. 79].
5 R. v. Lefave, [2003] O.J. No (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 84]. Statutes Noticed: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8 [para. 18]; sect. 24(2) [para. 76]. Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 489 [para. 57]. Authors and Works Noticed: Gold, Alan, Applying Section 8 in the Digital World: Seizures and Searches, Presentation at the Seventh Annual Six-Minute Criminal Defence Lawyer Program (Sponsored by the Law Society of Upper Canada), p. 3-2 [para. 68]. Counsel: Susan Magotiaux, for the appellant; Dale Ives, for the respondent. This appeal was heard on April 26, 2011, before MacPherson, Blair and Epstein, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was released for the court by Blair, J.A., on October 11, Editor: Elizabeth M.A. Turgeon Appeal allowed. Civil Rights - Topic 1508 Property - Expectation of privacy - Computer files - The police seized the accused's computer under a warrant respecting a fraud investigation - While looking for evidence of fraud, the police found images of child pornography (initial search) - Without obtaining a second warrant, the police continued their search for child pornography, including looking at video files unrelated to the fraud investigation - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the seizure of the images found in the initial search did not constitute a breach of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights - However, the seizure of the video files containing child pornography was not authorized by the warrant, under the plain view doctrine or under s. 489 of the Criminal Code (seizure of items not specified in the warrant) and was, therefore, contrary to s. 8 of the Charter - The court, applying the Grant anlaysis, ruled that the video files should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter - See paragraphs 75 to 103. Criminal Law - Topic 3163 Special powers - Power of seizure - Extent of power (incl. things not specified in warrant) - Section 489 of the Criminal Code authorized the seizure of things in addition to those things specified in a warrant under certain circumstances - The Ontario Court of Appeal opined that s. 489 was not a codification of the plain view doctrine - See paragraph 58. Criminal Law - Topic 3163 Special powers - Power of seizure - Extent of power (incl. things not specified in warrant)
6 - The police seized the accused's computer under a warrant respecting a fraud investigation - While looking for evidence of fraud, the police found images of child pornography (initial search) - Without obtaining a second warrant, the police continued their search for child pornography, including looking at video files unrelated to the fraud investigation - At issue was whether the police were entitled to seize the files containing child pornography under the plain view doctrine and/or s. 489 of the Criminal Code (seizure of things not specified in the warrant) - The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that the plain view doctrine and/or s. 489 justified the search and seizure of the images of child pornography found in the initial search - That seizure did not violate s. 8 of the Charter - However, the court stated that it would not extend the plain view doctrine to justify the police seizure and ensuing use by the Crown of the subsequently discovered video files - Nor did s. 489 assist in this respect - For the purpose of this case, the reach of s. 489 stopped at the discovery of the image files - Thus the seizure of the video files was contrary to s. 8 of the Charter - See paragraphs 53 to 75.
Her Majesty the Queen (applicant/appellant) v. Richard Gill (respondent/respondent) (C53886; 2012 ONCA 607) Indexed As: R. v. Gill (R.
Her Majesty the Queen (applicant/appellant) v. Richard Gill (respondent/respondent) (C53886; 2012 ONCA 607) Indexed As: R. v. Gill (R.) Ontario Court of Appeal Doherty, Lang and Epstein, JJ.A. September
More informationRegina (respondent) v. Rajan Singh Mann (appellant) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (intervenor) (CA040090; 2014 BCCA 231)
Regina (respondent) v. Rajan Singh Mann (appellant) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (intervenor) (CA040090; 2014 BCCA 231) Indexed As: R. v. Mann (R.S.) British Columbia Court of Appeal
More informationIndexed As: R. v. Spencer (M.D.)
Matthew David Spencer (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and Director of Public Prosecutions, Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Alberta, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Canadian
More informationHer Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51166)
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51166) Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51877) Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Paul Whalen
More informationSa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Adjudant J.G.A. Gagnon (intimé)
Sa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Adjudant J.G.A. Gagnon (intimé) Sa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Caporal A.J.R. Thibault (intimé) (CMAC-577; CMAC-581; 2015 CMAC 2; 2015 CACM 2) Indexed As: R. v. Gagnon
More informationHer Majesty the Queen v. Augustus Roderick Hancock (2015 NLPC 1313A00983) Indexed As: R. v. Hancock (A.R.)
Her Majesty the Queen v. Augustus Roderick Hancock (2015 NLPC 1313A00983) Indexed As: R. v. Hancock (A.R.) Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Gorman, P.C.J. March 2, 2015. Summary: The accused
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Sheldon Stubbs (appellant) (C51351; 2013 ONCA 514) Indexed As: R. v. Stubbs (S.)
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Sheldon Stubbs (appellant) (C51351; 2013 ONCA 514) Indexed As: R. v. Stubbs (S.) Ontario Court of Appeal Sharpe, Gillese and Watt, JJ.A. August 12, 2013. Summary:
More informationIndexed As: Figueiras v. York (Regional Municipality) et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Rouleau, van Rensburg and Pardu, JJ.A. March 30, 2015.
Paul Figueiras (applicant/appellant) v. Toronto Police Services Board, Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board, and Mark Charlebois (respondents/respondents) (C58771; 2015 ONCA 208) Indexed
More informationIndexed As: Mounted Police Association of Ontario et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)
Mounted Police Association of Ontario/Association de la Police Montée de l'ontario and B.C. Mounted Police Professional Association on their own behalf and on behalf of all members of the Royal Canadian
More informationHer Majesty The Queen v. Clifford Dale Lawler (accused) (2011 MBPC 53) Indexed As: R. v. Lawler (C.D.)
Her Majesty The Queen v. Clifford Dale Lawler (accused) (2011 MBPC 53) Indexed As: R. v. Lawler (C.D.) Manitoba Provincial Court Winnipeg Centre Smith, P.C.J. July 12, 2011. Summary: The accused was injured
More informationThe Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (appellant) v. Thanh Tam Tran (respondent) (A ; 2015 FCA 237)
The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (appellant) v. Thanh Tam Tran (respondent) (A-531-14; 2015 FCA 237) Indexed As: Tran v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Ghassan Salah (appellant) (C46991)
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Ghassan Salah (appellant) (C46991) Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Randy William Parish (appellant) (C47004) Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Thomas J.
More informationIndexed As: Iyamuremye et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Federal Court Shore, J. May 26, 2014.
Oscar Iyamuremye, Jean de Dieu Ntibeshya, Jeanine Umuhire et Karabo Greta Ineza (partie demanderesse) v. Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'immigration (partie défenderesse) (IMM-5282-13; 2014 CF 494;
More informationHer Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Robert Sarrazin and Darlind Jean (respondents) (33917; 2011 SCC 54; 2011 CSC 54)
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Robert Sarrazin and Darlind Jean (respondents) (33917; 2011 SCC 54; 2011 CSC 54) Indexed As: R. v. Sarrazin (R.) et al. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie,
More informationIndexed As: R. v. J.F. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ. March 1, 2013.
J.F. (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (intervenor) (34284; 2013 SCC 12; 2013 CSC 12) Indexed As: R. v. J.F. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin,
More informationHer Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Z. (A.A.) (young person/accused/appellant) (AY ; 2013 MBCA 33) Indexed As: R. v. A.A.Z.
Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Z. (A.A.) (young person/accused/appellant) (AY 11-30-07655; 2013 MBCA 33) Indexed As: R. v. A.A.Z. Manitoba Court of Appeal Scott, C.J.M., Hamilton and Beard, JJ.A.
More informationCindy Fulawka (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Bank of Nova Scotia (defendant/appellant) (C54467; 2012 ONCA 443)
Cindy Fulawka (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Bank of Nova Scotia (defendant/appellant) (C54467; 2012 ONCA 443) Indexed As: Fulawka v. Bank of Nova Scotia Ontario Court of Appeal Winkler, C.J.O., Lang and
More informationKeith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen (applicants) v. The University of Calgary (respondent) ( ; 2010 ABQB 644)
In The Matter Of Keith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen on Findings of Non-Academic Misconduct on Appeal from the Ad Hoc Review Committee of the General Faculties Council Keith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen (applicants)
More informationIndexed As: Murphy v. Amway Canada et al. Federal Court of Appeal Nadon, Gauthier and Trudel, JJ.A. February 14, 2013.
Kerry Murphy (appellant) v. Amway Canada Corporation and Amway Global (respondents) (A-487-11; 2013 FCA 38) Indexed As: Murphy v. Amway Canada et al. Federal Court of Appeal Nadon, Gauthier and Trudel,
More informationIndexed As: Hopkins v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd. Manitoba Court of Appeal Hamilton, Chartier, C.J.M., and Beard, JJ.A. July 5, 2013.
William Eric Hopkins and Christa Leigh Hopkins (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd. (defendant/appellant) (AI 12-30-07742; 2013 MBCA 67) Indexed As: Hopkins v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd.
More informationAnd In The Matter of [...] Indexed As: Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, Re. Federal Court Mactavish, J. December 6, 2012.
In The Matter of an Application by [...] for Warrants Pursuant to Sections 16 and 21 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. C-23 (2012 FC 1437) And In The Matter of [...] Indexed
More informationProceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 Dianna Louise Parsons, Michael Herbert Cruickshanks, David Tull, Martin Henry Griffen, Anna Kardish, Elsie Kotyk, Executrix of the Estate of Harry Kotyk,
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN LESLIE CAMERON KING
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: R. v. King 2008 PESCTD 18 Date: 20080325 Docket: S1-GC-572 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN LESLIE
More informationRichard James Goodwin (appellant) v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) and Attorney General of British Columbia (respondents)
Richard James Goodwin (appellant) v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) and Attorney General of British Columbia (respondents) British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) and Attorney
More informationIndexed As: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al.
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, High River Limited Partnership, Philip Services Corp. by its receiver and manager, Robert Cumming (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Deloitte & Touche, Deloitte & Touche LLP,
More informationEmilian Peter (applicant) v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondent) (IMM ; 2014 FC 1073)
Emilian Peter (applicant) v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondent) (IMM-12508-12; 2014 FC 1073) Indexed As: Peter v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
More informationIndexed As: Ouellette v. Saint-André (Rural Community) New Brunswick Court of Appeal Larlee, Richard and Bell, JJ.A. March 14, 2013.
Gisèle Ouellette (applicant/appellant) v. Saint-André, an incorporated Rural Community (respondent) (89-12-CA; 2013 NBCA 21) Indexed As: Ouellette v. Saint-André (Rural Community) New Brunswick Court of
More informationIndexed As: Moore v. Getahun et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Laskin, Sharpe and Simmons, JJ.A. January 29, 2015.
Blake Moore (respondent) v. Dr. Tajedin Getahun, The Scarborough Hospital - General Division, Dr. John Doe and Jack Doe (appellant) (C58338; 2015 ONCA 55) Indexed As: Moore v. Getahun et al. Ontario Court
More informationIndexed As: Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Human Rights Commission (N.S.) et al.
Halifax Regional Municipality, a body corporate duly incorporated pursuant to the laws of Nova Scotia (appellant) v. Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, Lucien Comeau, Lynn Connors and Her Majesty the
More informationR. v. H. (S.) Defences Automatism Insane and non-insane
88 [Indexed as: R. v. H. (S.)] Her Majesty the Queen, Appellant and S.H., Respondent Ontario Court of Appeal Docket: CA C56874 2014 ONCA 303 Robert J. Sharpe, David Watt, M.L. Benotto JJ.A. Heard: January
More informationIndexed As: Royal Bank of Canada v. Trang. Ontario Court of Appeal Hoy, A.C.J.O., Laskin, Sharpe, Cronk and Blair, JJ.A. December 9, 2014.
Royal Bank of Canada (plaintiff/appellant) v. Phat Trang and Phuong Trang a.k.a. Phuong Thi Trang (defendants) and Bank of Nova Scotia (respondent) (C57306; 2014 ONCA 883) Indexed As: Royal Bank of Canada
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Hussein Jama Nur (respondent)
Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Hussein Jama Nur (respondent) Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Hussein Jama Nur (respondent) and Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of British Columbia,
More informationIndexed As: Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. Federal Court Mactavish, J. April 18, 2012.
Canadian Human Rights Commission (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada, First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, Assembly of First Nations, Chiefs of Ontario, Amnesty International (respondents)
More informationIndexed As: Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Hoy, A.C.J.O., Laskin and Tulloch, JJ.A. May 22, 2014.
Meredith Boucher (plaintiff/respondent) v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. and Jason Pinnock (defendants/appellants) (C56243; C56262; 2014 ONCA 419) Indexed As: Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. et al. Ontario Court
More informationINDEPENDENT FORENSIC AUDITS RE S By V.A. (Bud) MacDonald, Q.C. and Bottom Line Research. Overview
INDEPENDENT FORENSIC AUDITS RE EMAILS By V.A. (Bud) MacDonald, Q.C. and Bottom Line Research Overview On some files your opponent may be taking the position that there are no relevant emails in addition
More informationA.M.R.I. (applicant/respondent on appeal) v. K.E.R. (respondent/appellant on appeal) (C52822; 2011 ONCA 417) Indexed As: A.M.R.I. v. K.E.R.
A.M.R.I. (applicant/respondent on appeal) v. K.E.R. (respondent/appellant on appeal) (C52822; 2011 ONCA 417) Indexed As: A.M.R.I. v. K.E.R. Ontario Court of Appeal Cronk, Gillese and MacFarland, JJ.A.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Vu, 2013 SCC 60 DATE: DOCKET: 34687
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Vu, 2013 SCC 60 DATE: 20131107 DOCKET: 34687 BETWEEN: Thanh Long Vu Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent - and - Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Emms, 2012 SCC 74 DATE: DOCKET: 34087
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Emms, 2012 SCC 74 DATE: 20121221 DOCKET: 34087 BETWEEN: James Peter Emms Appellant and Her Majesty the Queen Respondent - and - Canadian Civil Liberties Association,
More informationCase Name: R. v. Serré. Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Diane Serré. [2011] O.J. No ONSC Court File No.
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. Serré Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Diane Serré [2011] O.J. No. 6413 2011 ONSC 3944 Court File No. 05-30105 Ontario Superior Court of Justice C.D. Aitken J. Heard: May 18,
More informationIndexed As: Thibodeau v. Air Canada. Federal Court of Appeal Pelletier, Gauthier and Trudel, JJ.A. September 25, 2012.
Air Canada (appellant) v. Michel Thibodeau and Lynda Thibodeau (respondents) and The Commissioner of Official Languages (intervener) (A-358-11; 2012 FCA 246; 2012 CAF 246) Indexed As: Thibodeau v. Air
More informationIndexed As: Canadian National Railway v. Seeley et al. Federal Court Mandamin, J. February 1, 2013.
Canadian National Railway (applicant) v. Denise Seeley and Canadian Human Rights Commission (respondents) and Ontario Human Rights Commission, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communication
More informationIndexed As: Halifax (Regional Municipality) Pension Committee v. State Street Bank and Trust Co. et al.
The Halifax Regional Municipality Pension Committee (plaintiff) v. State Street Bank and Trust Company and State Street Global Advisors Ltd./Conseillers en Gestion State Street Ltée (defendants) (Hfx.
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 991 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 34/09 DATE: 20100326 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL
More informationIndexed As: McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission
Patricia McLean (appellant) v. Executive Director of the British Columbia Securities Commission (respondent) and Financial Advisors Association of Canada and Ontario Securities Commission (interveners)
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Riesberry, 2015 SCC 65 DATE: DOCKET: 36179
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Riesberry, 2015 SCC 65 DATE: 20151218 DOCKET: 36179 BETWEEN: Derek Riesberry Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent CORAM: Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis,
More informationAdapting Search and Seizure Jurisprudence to the Digital Age: Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Adapting Search and Seizure Jurisprudence to the Digital Age: Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms By: Jacob Trombley All Canadian citizens have the right to be secure against unreasonable
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE SUMMARY CONVICTION APPEAL COURT
COURT FILE NO.: SCA(P2731/08 (Brampton DATE: 20090724 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE SUMMARY CONVICTION APPEAL COURT B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Cynthia Valarezo, for the Crown Respondent -
More informationIndexed As: British Columbia Teachers' Federation v. British Columbia Public School Employers' Association
British Columbia Teachers' Federation (appellant/union) v. British Columbia Public School Employers' Association (respondent/employer) (CA039123; 2012 BCCA 326) Indexed As: British Columbia Teachers' Federation
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Vellone, 2011 ONCA 785 DATE: 20111214 DOCKET: C50397 MacPherson, Simmons and Blair JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Ex Rel. The Regional Municipality of York
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: DOCKET: 34135, 34193
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: 20120720 DOCKET: 34135, 34193 BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: John Virgil Punko Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Randall Richard Potts
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Spencer, 2014 SCC 43 DATE: DOCKET: 34644
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Spencer, 2014 SCC 43 DATE: 20140613 DOCKET: 34644 BETWEEN: Matthew David Spencer Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent - and - Director of Public Prosecutions,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Miljevic, 2011 SCC 8 DATE: DOCKET: 33714
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Miljevic, 2011 SCC 8 DATE: 20110216 DOCKET: 33714 BETWEEN: Marko Miljevic Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent CORAM: McLachlin C.J. and Deschamps, Fish,
More informationCase Name: Hunter v. Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Page 1 Case Name: Hunter v. Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Between Ralph Hunter, Plaintiff, and The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Bonnie Bishop,
More informationIndexed As: Iamkhong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. Federal Court Noël, J. March 24, 2011.
Suwalee Iamkhong (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondents) (IMM-3693-10; 2011 FC 355) Indexed As: Iamkhong v.
More informationIndexed As: Mavi et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.
Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Pritpal Singh Mavi, Maria Cristina Jatuff de Altamirano, Nedzad Dzihic, Rania El-Murr, Oleg Grankin, Raymond Hince, Homa Vossoughi and Hamid Zebaradami (respondents)
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Smith, 2017 NSSC 122. v. Tyrico Thomas Smith
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Smith, 2017 NSSC 122 Date: 20170509 Docket: Cr. No. 449182 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Tyrico Thomas Smith Judge: Heard: Sentencing
More informationIndexed As: Lockridge et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Environment) et al.
Ada Lockridge and Ronald Plain (applicants) v. Director, Ministry of the Environment, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as Represented by the Minister of the Environment, the Attorney General
More informationIndexed As: Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)
Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society and Sheryl Kiselbach (respondents) and Attorney General of Ontario, Community Legal Assistance Society,
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Hatt, 2017 NSCA 36. Her Majesty the Queen
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Hatt, 2017 NSCA 36 Date: 20170509 Docket: CAC 457828 Registry: Halifax Between: Richard Edward Hatt v. Her Majesty the Queen Appellant Respondent Judge: Appeal
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Fearon, 2014 SCC 77 DATE: DOCKET: 35298
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Fearon, 2014 SCC 77 DATE: 20141211 DOCKET: 35298 BETWEEN: Kevin Fearon Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent - and - Director of Public Prosecutions of
More informationIndexed As: Dow Chemical Co. et al. v. Nova Chemicals Corp. Federal Court O'Keefe, J. September 5, 2014.
The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Global Technologies Inc. and Dow Chemical Canada ULC (plaintiffs) v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (defendant) (T-2051-10; 2014 FC 844) Indexed As: Dow Chemical Co. et al. v.
More informationA.I. Enterprises Ltd. and Alan Schelew (appellants) v. Bram Enterprises Ltd. and Jamb Enterprises Ltd. (respondents) ( CA; 2012 NBCA 33)
A.I. Enterprises Ltd. and Alan Schelew (appellants) v. Bram Enterprises Ltd. and Jamb Enterprises Ltd. (respondents) (108-10-CA; 2012 NBCA 33) Indexed As: Bram Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. A.I. Enterprises
More informationCitation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: 2000308 2000 PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC-17475 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
More informationPolice Newsletter, July 2015
1. Supreme Court of Canada rules on the constitutionality of warrantless cell phone and other digital device search and privacy. 2. On March 30, 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled police officers
More information2010 ONSC 6980 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. R. v. Rafferty CarswellOnt 18591, 2010 ONSC 6980
R. v. Rafferty, 2010 ONSC 6980 Ontario Superior Court of Justice R. v. Rafferty 2010 CarswellOnt 18591, 2010 ONSC 6980 Her Majesty the Queen, Prosecutor and Michael Thomas Christopher Stephen Rafferty,
More informationIndexed As: Kandola v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Federal Court of Appeal Noël, Mainville and Webb, JJ.A. March 31, 2014.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (appellant) v. Nanakmeet Kaur Kandola by her guardian at law Malkiat Singh Kandola (respondent) (A-154-13; 2014 FCA 85) Indexed As: Kandola v. Canada (Minister
More informationCase Name: R. v. Cardinal. Between Her Majesty the Queen, Respondent, and Ernest Cardinal and William James Cardinal, Applicants. [2011] A.J. No.
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. Cardinal Between Her Majesty the Queen, Respondent, and Ernest Cardinal and William James Cardinal, Applicants [2011] A.J. No. 203 2011 ABCA 72 Dockets: 1003-0328-A, 1003-0329-A
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF ALBERTA AT EDMONTON. - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT
Docket #: 130713118P1 PROVINCIAL COURT OF ALBERTA AT EDMONTON BETWEEN: JOSEPH AARON HARMS Applicant - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT TAKE NOTICE THAT the Applicant
More informationMEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL From: Lawrence Rubin Date: March 23, 2018 Subject: Professional Standards (Criminal) Committee Standard No. 3: Defence Obligations Regarding Disclosure FOR: APPROVAL INTRODUCTION
More informationIntroduction to Wiretap Law
Listening, Snooping and Searching: What s Right, What s Wrong Friday, November 30, 2007 Introduction to Wiretap Law James C. Martin Public Prosecution Service, Canada Overview of Canadian Electronic Surveillance
More informationComputer Search and Seizure
Computer Search and Seizure National Center For Justice And The Rule Of Law University of Mississippi School of Law Thomas K. Clancy Director www.ncjrl.org Funding! This project is supported by grants
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Brown, 2016 NSPC 63. Her Majesty. v. Michael Anthony Brown. The Honourable Judge Paul Scovil
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Brown, 2016 NSPC 63 Date: 2016-11-04 Docket: 2802941, 2802942 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty v. Michael Anthony Brown Judge: Heard: The Honourable
More informationHIP POCKET GUIDE TO SEARCHES AND INSPECTIONS OF VESSELS IN CANADA
HIP POCKET GUIDE TO SEARCHES AND INSPECTIONS Prepared by: Brad M. Caldwell Caldwell & Co. 401-815 Hornby Street Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2E6 Tele: 604 689 8894 bcaldwell@admiraltylaw.com An abridged version
More informationI Done What He Told Me To What to Do (And Not to Do) When the Regulator Calls
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW: MANAGING RISK PAPER 3.1 I Done What He Told Me To What to Do (And Not to Do) When the Regulator Calls These materials were prepared by Toby Kruger and Clifford G. Proudfoot, both of
More information2. The inspector was attempting to ascertain whether the premises contained a suite which was not in compliance with the zoning by-law.
Court of Appeal for British Columbia R. v. Bichel Date: 19860620 The judgment of the court was delivered by r. MACFARLANE J.A.: The appellant submits that a zoning by-law is inconsistent with s. 8 of the
More informationTerrorism,Criminal Organizations, and Investigavtive Necessity for Wire-Taps
Terrorism,Criminal Organizations, and Investigavtive Necessity for Wire-Taps Jared Craig* Introduction The police suspect criminal activity. As part of their investigation, they use a wire-tap. The concept
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Pike, 2018 NSSC 38. Jeremy Pike. v. Her Majesty the Queen
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Pike, 2018 NSSC 38 Date: 20180214 Docket: CRPH. No. 470108 Registry: Port Hawkesbury Between: Jeremy Pike v. Her Majesty the Queen Applicant Respondent Judge:
More informationIndexed As: Bank of Montreal v. Rogozinsky. Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Judicial District of Edmonton Schlosser, Master December 16, 2014.
Bank of Montreal (plaintiff and defendant by counterclaim) v. Aileen J. Rogozinsky also known as Aileen Janet Rogozinsky (defendant and plaintiff by counterclaim) (1403 09800; 2014 ABQB 771) Indexed As:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Awashish, 2018 SCC 45 APPEAL HEARD: February 7, 2018 JUDGMENT RENDERED: October 26, 2018 DOCKET: 37207 BETWEEN: Her Majesty The Queen Appellant and Justine Awashish
More informationCourt of Queen s Bench of Alberta
Court of Queen s Bench of Alberta Citation: R v The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2017 ABQB 329 Between: Her Majesty the Queen Date: 20170516 Docket: 160339594X1 Registry: Edmonton - and - Crown The
More informationTHE BARREAU DU QUÉBEC: COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS
THE BARREAU DU QUÉBEC: COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS Privacy and Personal Information Protection at Border Crossings and Airports Submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information,
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA
On review from a decision of Provincial Court Judge, July 24, 2018 Date: 20190204 Docket: CR 18-15-00824 (Thompson Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Kelly-White Cited as: 2019 MBQB 22 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA APPEAL DIVISION. Clarke, C.J.N.S., Jones and Matthews, JJ.A. RAYMOND MARC LePAGE, -and-
S.C.C. No.01511 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: Clarke, C.J.N.S., Jones and Matthews, JJ.A. RAYMOND MARC LePAGE, -and- Appellant HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent E.A.N. Blackburn
More informationIndexed As: William v. British Columbia et al. British Columbia Court of Appeal Levine, Tysoe and Groberman, JJ.A. June 27, 2012.
Roger William, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Xeni Gwet'in First Nations Government and on behalf of all other members of the Tsilhqot'in Nation (respondent/plaintiff) v. Her
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: Citation: R. v. Scott, 2016 NLCA 16 Date: April 26, 2016 Docket: 201501H0001 AND: JOHN SCOTT HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN APPELLANT RESPONDENT
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA. Citation: R. v. Hoyes, 2018 NSPC 26
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Hoyes, 2018 NSPC 26 Date: 2018-07-31 Registry: Halifax IN THE MATTER OF an Application by Her majesty the Queen in right of Canada for an Order pursuant
More informationCase Name: R. v. McLean. Between Her Majesty the Queen, Crown, and Robert Andrew McLean, Accused. [2014] A.J. No ABPC 231
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. McLean Between Her Majesty the Queen, Crown, and Robert Andrew McLean, Accused [2014] A.J. No. 1137 2014 ABPC 231 Docket: 131243958P1 Registry: St. Paul Alberta Provincial Court
More informationCRIMINAL LAW PROFESSIONAL STANDARD #3
CRIMINAL LAW PROFESSIONAL STANDARD #3 NAME OF STANDARD WITHDRAWAL OF GUILTY PLEA Brief Description of Standard: This new standard is designed to address the circumstances when a party wishes to withdraw
More informationOrder F10-01 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT. Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator. January 7, 2010
Order F10-01 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator January 7, 2010 Quicklaw Cite: [2010] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 1 CanLII Cite: 2010 BCIPC 1 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/2010/orderf10-01.pdf
More informationIN BRIEF SECTION 24(2) OF THE CHARTER EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE. Learning Objectives. Materials. Extension. Teaching and Learning Strategies
OF THE CHARTER EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE Learning Objectives To develop students knowledge of section 24(2) of the Charter, including the legal test used to determine whether or not evidence obtained through
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: R v Giesbrecht, 2018 MBCA 40 Date: 20180413 Docket: AR17-30-08912 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA B ETWEEN : ) G. G. Brodsky, Q.C. and ) Z. B. Kinahan HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) for the Applicant
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Davey, 2012 SCC 75 DATE: DOCKET: 34179
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Davey, 2012 SCC 75 DATE: 20121221 DOCKET: 34179 BETWEEN: Troy Gilbert Davey Appellant and Her Majesty the Queen Respondent - and - Canadian Civil Liberties Association,
More informationSECTION 8 UNREASONABLE SEARCH & SEIZURE
SECTION 8 UNREASONABLE SEARCH & SEIZURE : Did X violate Y s section 8 rights when they searched? : Section 8 states that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. The
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN STACEY REID BLACKMORE
Date: 19991207 Docket: AD-0832 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN STACEY REID BLACKMORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT
More informationDISCLOSURE: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS IN PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE CASES. Andrew J. Heal
DISCLOSURE: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS IN PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE CASES Andrew J. Heal ANDREW J. HEAL, PARTNER HEAL & Co. LLP - 2 - DISCLOSURE: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROSECUTION
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Fercan Developments Inc., 2016 ONCA 269 DATE: 20160414 DOCKET: C59112 Laskin, LaForme and Pardu JJ.A. Her Majesty the Queen and Fercan Developments Inc.,
More informationSEARCH & SEIZURE IN CANADA. A comprehensive guide on gun owners rights and obligations. including case law reviews edition
SEARCH & SEIZURE IN CANADA A comprehensive guide on gun owners rights and obligations including case law reviews 2018 edition INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES OF POLICE OFFICERS The police use their powers in
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: PHS Community Services Society v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 BCSC 1453 Date: 20081031 Docket: S075547 Registry: Vancouver Between: PHS Community
More information110 O.R. (3d) ONSC Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Pattillo J. May 23, 2012
Page 1 SA Capital Corp. v. Brooks, as Executor of the Estate of Mander, Deceased, et al. Sbaraglia v. RSM Richter Inc. et al. [Indexed as: SA Capital Corp. v. Mander Estate] 110 O.R. (3d) 765 2012 ONSC
More informationCase Name: R. v. Fitl. Between Her Majesty The Queen, and Christopher Shane Fitl, Accused. [2015] A.J. No Action No.
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. Fitl Between Her Majesty The Queen, and Christopher Shane Fitl, Accused [2015] A.J. No. 985 Action No.: 130198765Q1 E-File No.: ECQ15FITLC Alberta Court of Queen's Bench M.T. Moreau
More information