Dismissed (3)

Criminal Law: Bail 

R. v. A.J.D., 2020 NSCA 27 (39154)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of bail review reasons. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Forfeiture; Global Sentences; Pre-Trial Custody 

Lefebvre v. R., 2018 QCCA 1033 (39181)
The Applicant, Mr. Lefebvre, was found guilty of drug trafficking, conspiracy to traffic in drugs, trafficking for the benefit of a criminal organization and inciting a person to commit an offence for the benefit of a criminal organization. He filed a motion based on section 11(i) of the Charter, submitting section 5 of the Truth in Sentencing Act, S.C. 2009, c. 29, infringes the right, if the punishment for an offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment. The judge dismissed the motion. He imposed a global sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment and deducted one day for each day spent in pre-trial custody. He ordered a commercial building belonging to Mr. Lefebvre be forfeited as offence-related property, finding it had been used, in particular, as a place to hold meetings to coordinate the organization’s operations and as a transit point for unlawful substances. The Qué. C.A. allowed the sentence appeal in part. The court declared section 5 of the Truth in Sentencing Act to be of no force or effect because it infringed the Applicant’s right to the benefit of the lesser punishment, and granted him an enhanced credit of two days for each day spent three to a cell in pre‑trial custody; and dismissed the appeal from the judgment of forfeiture of offence-related property. “The miscellaneous motion is dismissed. The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. In any event, had the motion for an extension of time been granted, the application for leave to appeal…would have been dismissed.”

Tax: Search & Seizure 

Agence du revenu du Québec v. B.T. Céramiques inc., et al., 2020 QCCA 402 (39177)
The Respondents B.T. Céramiques et al. were tried in the Court of Québec for alleged offences. They answered by denouncing the conduct of the Canada Revenue Agency, which, they alleged, had gathered evidence by misusing its tax audit powers to conduct a criminal investigation without their knowledge. The CRA had used that evidence to obtain search warrants and orders. The Applicant, the Agence du revenu du Québec, had obtained judicial authorizations to in turn seize evidence from offices of the CRA. B.T. Céramiques et al. sought to have that evidence excluded. The Court of Québec ordered the evidence be excluded. It considered the predominant purpose of the CRA’s audit had been to establish penal liability and the rights of B.T. Céramiques et al. had been violated. The Superior Court allowed the appeal and rejected the exclusion of the evidence. It concluded the Court of Québec had erred in several ways, including in its review of the ARQ’s conduct, which should not have been equated with that of the CRA. The Qué. C.A. unanimously allowed the appeal. In its view, the Superior Court had, among other things, ascribed errors to the trial judge that were not in fact errors, and it was therefore not open to the Superior Court to substitute its own assessment of the evidence for that of the trial judge. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”