Facts:

In 2008, while at the international airport of city V on his way to country M, Mr. C failed to disclose to an officer with the Border Services Agency that he was carrying currency valued at more than $10,000 contrary to the domestic Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. The officer seized the money, finding there were reasonable grounds to believe that the money was derived from proceeds of crime. C asked for a Ministerial Review of the seizure. The Minister's delegate found that there had been a contravention of the Act and that the money should remain seized.

Main issue:

Was the delegate's decision reasonable? Did the delegate breach the duty of fairness?

Facts:

The claimant bought a digital camera from an online shop and transferred the money for it to the defendant’s account. However, he never received the purchased item. It turned out that the seller’s online shop was a scam and the defendant’s account was used for the fraud. The defendant –unaware of the illicit activities – had provided his access information and allowed for an unknown person (the seller) to use his account for a monthly fee of  € 400.

Main issue:

The defendant had already been found guilty of money laundering under the Criminal Code by the Criminal Courts. In the civil action at hand, the Court had to decide whether a bank account holder, who negligently allows third parties to have access to his account and to make money transfers as part of the process of administering fraudulent online activities is liable to pay compensation to those harmed by the fraud.

Facts:

The appellant was arrested and charged with a number of drug-related offences (trafficking and money laundering). . For that relating to ''money laundering'', the appellant was sentenced to seven and a half years' imprisonment. On the charge of trafficking in a marketable quantity of heroin, he was sentenced to eight years imprisonment. Finally, on that of trafficking in a commercial quantity of dimethylamphetamine, he was sentenced to six years imprisonment. The sentencing judge determined that the sentence on the count of trafficking in a marketable quantity of heroin was to be the base sentence.  This resulted in a total effective sentence of ten years imprisonment. A period of seven years was required to be served before the appellant became eligible for parole.

Main issue:

The sentences on all counts were claimed to be manifestly excessive, resulting in a total effective sentence that was also manifestly excessive. The sentences imposed on the appellant on, respectively, the counts of money laundering and trafficking in a commercial quantity of dimethylamphetamine apparently offended the principle of parity with due regard to the sentences imposed on the co-offenders T, N and S.

Facts: 

Application by the prosecution to strike out the accused's appeal. The accused reasoned that the dismissal of his request for the release of funds seized during the execution of a search warrant violated his rights.

The police had seized the sum of US$56,000 from the accused's vehicle. The search was part of an investigation which led to the accused being charged with two offences violating the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The accused sought the release of all or part of the seized funds to cover his reasonable legal expenses given that he had been rejected for legal aid and his legal counsel was representing him on a pro bono basis. The applications judge dismissed the accused's application for the release of the funds as he was not prepared to draw an inference that the accused had established a legitimate possession of the funds so as to reduce the concern that the funds were the proceeds of crime. The accused sought to appeal the decision on the basis that the applications judge erred in considering the legitimacy of his possession of the funds given that it was not contested by the prosecution and that the only issue for consideration was the state of his financial affairs as it affected his need to pay counsel fees from the seized funds.

Main Issue:

Possibility to appeal against a decision by the application judge, seeking to release of all or part of the seized funds to cover the accused's reasonable legal expenses.

Facts:

Appeal by the accused from conviction for offences related to a conspiracy to import and traffic in heroin. The prosecution obtained a wiretap authorization to intercept private communications of the accused and others for the investigation of firearm and drug offences. The accused and others were allegedly involved in arms dealing and the ongoing importation and distribution of wholesale quantities of heroin from country P. Police seized five kilograms of heroin from a courier boarding a bus in city T bound for city V. The accused challenged the validity of the wiretap authorization at trial on the basis that the supporting affidavit did not meet the investigative necessity requirement and did not meet the reasonable grounds requirement for the alleged firearm offences. The affidavit disclosed that a  police informer was approached by a group including the accused about acquiring a large number of automatic weapons in exchange for heroin. The informer met with the group and reported the discussions, some of which were observed by police. The transaction did not proceed. Police had information from another person, a long-time drug user and street trafficker, concerning the group's involvement in importing and trafficking in drugs and distributing firearms. Police also intercepted one kilogram of heroin sent from country A to a residence containing correspondence mentioning the accused by name. In addition, the Drug Enforcement Administration of country A had sought RCMP assistance in investigating the accused for drug and money laundering offences and provided a recorded conversation in which the accused discussed receipt and sale of a shipment of heroin. They intended to set up a meeting between the accused and an undercover agent and sought authorization to intercept the resultant communications. The trial judge upheld the validity of the affidavit.

Main issue:

Validity of the wiretap?

Facts: 

Appeal by M from his convictions for eight offences relating to the illicit drug trade. He was initially charged with 11 offences, but a fresh indictment, filed in 2006, charged him with conspiracy to export marijuana, conspiracy to traffic in marijuana, four counts of possession of proceeds of crime and two counts of money laundering. The trial judge found that M accumulated large quantities of marijuana and exported it to country U at uncontrolled border crossing points. M had a legal counsel until his trial, where he was self-represented. The counsel merely assisted him and did not appear in court. The case was complicated. There were 60 witnesses and 200 intercepted telephone conversations. M was provided with a memorandum explaining trial procedures, fundamental principles and rules of evidence. M's defence strategy centered around the claim that he was not the ringleader of the conspiracy. The judge met with M and the prosecution daily during the course of the trial to ensure that M was ready for the next day. The judge helped him question witnesses, at times preventing him from asking questions that would elicit unhelpful responses. The judge commented several times that M was doing a good job representing himself. In instructing the jury on the intent required for conspiracy, the judge stated that the jury had to find that no reasonable doubt existed about whether the intent had been demonstrated before applying the common sense inference that M intended the natural and probable results of his actions.

Main issue:

Self-representation of a respondent.

Facts:

Appeal by the accused from conviction and sentence for possession and transportation of property obtained by crime. The accused was charged after he had checked in at the airport with a suitcase containing US $32,000. Police had seized the suitcase and opened it after obtaining a search warrant. The accused was subsequently arrested in a hotel room in city N where police found 100 pounds of marihuana and US$178,000. Police subsequently discovered a marihuana grow operation in a house rented in the accused's name. The prosecution claimed that the $32,000 in the accused's suitcase were the proceeds of his illicit drug activity. The accused was represented by an experienced counsel at trial. The trial judge admitted the evidence relating to the accused's drug activity as directly relevant to the prosecution's theory of the case even though it might also have reflected on the bad character of the accused. The accused argued that his legal representation at trial was ineffective because of the counsel's failure to raise an argument relating to fundamental rights and he sought leave to advance the argument on appeal. Furthermore, he claimed that the trial judge erred in admitting the drug evidence and in his assessment of the accused's credibility. The accused was subsequently sentenced to nine months imprisonment which he objected, arguing that a conditional sentence should have rather been imposed.

Main issue:

If the lawyer missed to give a argument in first trial, is the accused allowed to introduce this new evidence on appeal?

Fact:

The appellants were convicted of an offence of illegal bookmaking and acquitted of another offence of money laundering by a court in the city M in March 2002. The allegation under the money laundering charge in the proceedings was of using a bank account in the city H  (the 95 account) to launder proceeds of illegal bookmaking on horse races in the amount of $ 187 million.

During committal proceedings before a magistrate, the appellants raised the plea of autrefois acquit in reliance of their acquittal in city M and asked the magistrate to dismiss or stay the committal proceedings as an abuse of process. The case against the appellants was then transferred to the District Court. The appellants applied unsuccessfully for stay of proceedings relying on principles protecting against double jeopardy for the exercise of the court's power to prevent an abuse of its process.

Main issue:

Is there any abuse of process because of a risk of double jeopardy?

Facts:

The accused WT, DN, TP and CN were involved with remittance agents who conducted cash dealing businesses. WT delivered or arranged for the delivery of cash to the premises of two such agents in city V, for delivery to DN and others in city S for the purchase of heroin. Many of the transactions were subject to the domestic Financial Transaction Reports Act which created the obligation that they be reported. No reports were made. WT and DN conspired to transfer the sum of $ 2,021,000 in breach of the Reports Act between 1 August and 11 November 2005 (the only count on the first indictment). The monies were transferred to DN and another man, both of whom lived in city S, in 23 separate transactions. They were the proceeds of crime and had been derived from the commercial trafficking of 50 blocks of heroin jointly acquired by WT, DN, CN and another person. The primary motive for the offence was the concealment of the profits of that crime. There are four appeals before the court. WT, DN and TP appeal against sentences imposed by the court of first instance on 10 June 2008 under the Criminal Code. The Director of Public Prosecutions also appeals against a sentence imposed upon CN on the same date in the same court.

Main Issue:

The appeals have proceeded on the basis that the sentencing discretion in each case is re-opened because the sentencing judge erred by transposing the sentences in relation to particular counts and breached the Criminal Code by failing to fix the commencement dates of each sentence.

Facts:

Appeal by the accused from conviction and sentence. After drugs were found in the accused's vehicle, he was charged with various offences, including possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of morphine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of property obtained by crime, and money laundering. The accused conceded that he was in possession of methamphetamine, but denied that it was for the purpose of trafficking. At the preliminary inquiry, another individual testified that a portion of the drugs were his and that the accused knew that they were in the car. At trial, he testified that the accused did not know that a portion of the drugs were in the car.

Main issue:

Treatment of the witness' testimony and the treatment of the defence evidence.