The Respondent, a labour union representing employees at an Edmonton casino during the course of a lawful strike, had run afoul of Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act by videotaping individuals crossing the picket line during the strike, and using the images collected in union newsletters, strike leaflets, and a website called CasinoScabs.ca. Continue reading
Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401, 2013 SCC 62
Filed under Section 2(b): Freedom of Expression
R. v. Vu, 2013 SCC 60
The accused, Thanh Long Vu, was suspected of electricity theft. Police obtained a warrant to search his home, but made no mention in the Information to Obtain that computers might be seized and searched. In the course of the search, a marijuana grow operation was discovered, and evidence obtained from the search of a computer was used to connect Vu with allegations of marijuana production and electricity theft. Continue reading
R. v. MacKenzie, 2013 SCC 50
Benjamin Cain MacKenzie was subject to a traffic stop, during which police developed a suspicion that he was trafficking drugs. The factors pointed to by the officers on the scene were Mr. MacKenzie’s “erratic manner of driving, high level of nervousness, the pinkish hue of his eyes, his course of travel and contradictory answers on his travel dates.” Continue reading
R. v. Chehil, 2013 SCC 49
The accused, Mandeep Singh Chehil, aroused the suspicion of police when he booked a one-way overnight flight from Vancouver to Halifax, travelling alone, paying cash for his ticket at the last minute, and checking one bag. Considering all of these factors, the police developed “reasonable suspicion” that Mr. Chehil was trafficking drugs and presented his checked bag to a sniffer dog. When the dog gave a positive indication for the presence of drugs, police opened the bag and discovered three kilograms of cocaine. Continue reading
R. v. Ghozerash, 2013 BCCA 272
In September 2009, Azad Yousefi Ghozerash was charged with importing and possessing opium for the purpose of trafficking. His case was initially set for trial in December 2010, but adjourned due to the unavailability of a Crown witness. The trial was then rescheduled for October 2011, at which time counsel for the accused made an application for a judicial stay of proceedings on account of unreasonable delay. Continue reading
R. v. Ahmed-Kadir, 2013 BCCA 269
The appellant, Aras Ahmed-Kadir, had been convicted of four offences involving unlicensed handgun possession and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. After filing his Notice of Appeal, he applied for the equivalent of a Rowbotham order, asking the court to appoint counsel pursuant to Section 684 of the Criminal Code. Continue reading
R. v. Levkovic, 2013 SCC 25
Ivana Levkovic was charged under Section 243 of the Criminal Code with concealing the dead body of a child, after the remains of a newborn baby (allegedly “at or near full term”) was found in her vacated apartment. Levkovic challenged the constitutionality of Section 243 as being unconstitutionally vague, insofar as it related to a child which died before birth and was therefore stillborn. She argued that the law constituted an infringement on her right to liberty and interfered with every woman’s right not to disclose a naturally failed pregnancy. Continue reading
R. v. Mailhot, 2013 SCC 17
In a brief but meaningful decision rendered March 28, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada insisted on a new trial for Jean Philippe Mailhot, an accused individual whose right to a fair trial had been compromised by comments of the trial judge during the charge to the jury. Continue reading
R. v. TELUS Communications Co., 2013 SCC 16
The telecommunications carrier, Telus, kept a backup of all text messages sent over its wireless network, potentially allowing customers to recover messages which had been accidentally deleted. Police had obtained a general warrant to access this database for the purpose of an investigation involving two Telus subscriber. Telus applied to quash the warrant, arguing that it is unlawful to intercept a private communication without specific wiretap authorization under Section VI of the Criminal Code. Continue reading
Filed under Section 8: Search & Seizure
Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11
The Whatcott case was brought to the Supreme Court of Canada on appeal from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, which had found that a number of pamphlets critical of homosexual behaviour did not meet the test for “hate speech” under Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code. Continue reading