“A”, a “de facto spouse” who did not receive spousal support at the end of a seven-year conjugal relationship, challenged the constitutionality of Article 585 of the Quebec Civil Code, which establishes a right of spousal support in the event of divorce, but not in the event of the breakdown of a marriage-like relationship. This distinction, A argued, is contrary to the guarantee of equality in Section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Continue reading
R. v. Boyd, 2013 BCCA 19
The Appellant, Craig Boyd, was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after a search of his vehicle resulting from a police road block. The officer who stopped his vehicle apparently smelled an odour of burnt marijuana, then placed Mr. Boyd under arrest. The search of the vehicle upon arrest yielded a plastic bag, containing four smaller plastic bags of cocaine. Continue reading
Filed under Section 8: Search & Seizure
R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 72
Two accused persons stood charged with sexually assaulting N.S. When called to testify, N.S. stated that she wished to wear a niqab which covered her face, and which she insisted was a necessary part of her Muslim faith. Continue reading
Sriskandarajah v. United States of America, 2012 SCC 70
The Appellants, Suresh Sriskandarajah and Piratheepan Nadarajah, were alleged to have provided support to a Sri Lankan terrorist organization, the Tamil Tigers. Sriskandarajah was alleged to have provided the Tigers with warship design software and communications equipment, and to have assisted with money laundering. Nadarajah was accused of attempting to acquire weapons on behalf of the organization. Neither Defendant was prosecuted in Canada; rather, the United States sought execution of both to be prosecuted there. Continue reading
Filed under Section 6: Mobility Rights
R. v. Khawaja, 2012 SCC 69
In R. v. Khawaja, a companion case heard alongside Sriskandarajah v. United States of America, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the constitutional argument of convicted terrorist conspirator, Mohammad Momin Khawaja. Continue reading
R. v. Aucoin, 2012 SCC 66
The Appellant had been detained for two Motor Vehicle Act offences, namely using a license plate that was not registered to his vehicle and exceeding the legal blood alcohol limit. While detained, Aucoin was subject to a search which resulted in the finding of ecstasy and cocaine. He was convicted of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking. Continue reading
R. v. Nedelcu, 2012 SCC 59
The Respondent, Marius Nedelcu, had been convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and impaired driving causing bodily harm after a serious motorcycle accident in which his passenger sustained a brain injury. The matter was the subject of both civil and criminal proceedings, in which Mr. Nedelcu gave inconsistent testimony. In civil examination for discovery, he claimed that he had no memory of the accident. In the criminal trial, he testified in detail and claimed to remember 90 to 95 percent of what happened. The question on appeal was whether the conviction violated Mr. Nedelcu’s right not to have inconsistent incriminating testimony from another proceeding used against him in a criminal proceeding. Continue reading
R. v. Dineley, 2012 SCC 58
Dineley was heard as a companion case alongside R. v. St Onge Lamoureux and involved an analysis of whether legislative amendments to Canada’s impaired driving laws could operate retrospectively, thereby preventing the accused from calling an expert witness to cast doubt on Breathalyzer results. The amendments in question only became law during the course of Mr. Dineley’s trial. Continue reading
R. v. St-Onge Lamoureux, 2012 SCC 57
The accused, Anic St-Onge Lamoureux, was charged with impaired driving and had sought at trial to advance a so called “Carter defence,” arguing that the Breathalyzer results obtained from her did not accurately represent her blood alcohol level. Continue reading
R. v. Cole, 2012 SCC 53
The accused was a high school teacher who was allowed to use a school-owned laptop computer for personal use. A technician tasked with maintaining the computer on behalf of the school discovered nude photographs of an underage female student on the hard drive. He turned the computer over to the school principal who subsequently turned it over to police. The issue was whether the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in regard to the contents of the laptop, whether his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure had been infringed, and whether the evidence should be excluded under Section 24(2) of the Charter. Continue reading