When a police officer witnessed two individuals leaving a suspected “crack house” in a vehicle, he followed them, pulling the vehicle over several blocks away. While questioning the occupants of the vehicle, he noticed a bulge in the passenger’s front pocket, and asked the passenger to remove the object which proved to be a bag of cocaine. Continue reading
R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731
In R. v. Zundel, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the constitutionality of Section 181 of the Criminal Code, the so-called “false news law,” which was initially designed to protect the reputations of politicians, but in this case was used against a Toronto-based publisher who prolifically and unrelentingly published material questioning the historically-accepted account of the Holocaust in Germany during World War II. Continue reading
R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606
The Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society was charged with two counts of conspiracy to unduly prevent or lessen competition, as a result of its practices in selling and dispensing prescription drugs in 1986 and prior. Continue reading
R. v. Morin [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771
In R. v. Morin, the Supreme Court of Canada revisited the test for unreasonable delay set out in R. v. Askov, putting an increased emphasis on the presence or absence of prejudice, and putting a greater onus on the accused to prove that prejudice has occurred. Continue reading
R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452
The Appellant, Butler, had been convicted of possession and distribution of “obscenity,” for material sold at his Winnipeg, Manitoba retail outlet, Avenue Video Boutique. The task of the Supreme Court of Canada in considering Mr. Butler’s appeal was to make a determination as to the constitutionality of Section 163 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s obscenity law, and further to interpret Section 163 to determine what types of material fall under the umbrella of “obscenity.” Continue reading
R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326
This case involved a lawyer who, during his trial for breach of trust, theft, and fraud, argued that the prosecution had not provided adequate disclosure for him to make a strong defence. Mr. Stinchcombe was convicted of fraud and breach of trust and this conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal, but ultimately set aside by the Supreme Court of Canada, which accepted that contention that Crown disclosure had been incomplete. Continue reading
R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697
James Keegstra, a schoolteacher, was charged with the willful promotion of hatred under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code, for allegedly anti-Semitic statements made during class. Mr. Keegstra successfully challenged the Criminal Code section in the Alberta Court of Appeal, which held that it was an infringement on freedom of expression, as protected by Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Continue reading
R. v. Wong, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36
The accused, Santiago Wong, was charged with maintaining an illegal gambling operation, based on surveillance footage from a camera placed in his hotel room by police without prior judicial authorization. The trial judge found this tactic to be an unreasonable infringement of Wong’s rights under Section 8 of the Charter; however, this conclusion was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal. Continue reading
R. v. Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199
The appellants, who were charged with conspiracy to commit extortion, as well as a number of firearms offenses, argued that a two-year delay in bringing their case to trial had violated their right to be tried within a reasonable time under Section 11(b) of the Charter. Continue reading
R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 SCR 151
In R. v. Hebert, the Supreme Court of Canada defined the scope and nature of the right to remain silent. The accused, Neil Gerald Hebert, was arrested on a charge of robbery and indicated that he did not wish to speak with the police. An undercover police officer was then placed in his cell, posing as another suspect under arrest. Mr. Hebert spoke to this individual and made numerous incriminating statements. Continue reading