Dismissed (4)

Criminal Law: Forfeiture 

Guimont v. R., 2019 QCCA 1759 (39527)
The Applicants, R. Guimont and C. Guimont, were selling night vision goggles to foreign customers on the Internet. They were convicted, on the basis the goggles were “controlled goods”, of possessing and exporting them in contravention of federal legislation. After the proceedings were stayed because of unreasonable delays on the basis of the decision in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, the Crown brought a motion to dispose of the seized goods, which were no longer needed for investigation purposes, under s. 490 of the Criminal Code, the Applicants applied for the return of the seized goods under the same section.  The motion judge ordered the seized goods be forfeited, finding the Guimonts had failed to show they were entitled to ownership or possession. The Qué. C.A. unanimously dismissed the Guimonts’ appeal, concluding the motion judge had made no error; the burden was on the Appellants, and it had not been discharged in this case. “The various requests for miscellaneous relief are dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Investigative Technique Privilege 

Truax v. R., 2020 ABCA 241 (39584)
The Applicant came to the attention of police when she communicated with the primary known target of a drug investigation whose communications were being lawfully intercepted. The Applicant’s vehicle was stopped at a Canadian border crossing, and multiple kilograms of methamphetamine found in hidden compartments. At trial, the Crown sought to tender the Applicant’s own private communications against her. She brought an application seeking disclosure regarding the Mobile Device Identifier used. The hearing judge concluded, pursuant to s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act, the make and model of the Mobile Device Identifier was protected by investigative technique privilege. The trial judge dismissed the Applicant’s s. 8 Charter application, and convicted her of six drug related offences. The Alta. C.A. dismissed the appeals. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Mental Illness Re Sentencing 

Wagar v. R., 2018 ONCA 931 (39571)
The Applicant pled guilty to two counts of fraud over $5K. The Applicant was sentenced to 5 ½ years’ imprisonment. The Ont. C.A. granted leave to appeal the sentence, and dismissed that appeal, holding mental illness was not a factor to be taken into consideration when determining a fit sentence. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Family Law: Jurisdiction 

R.S. v. W.G., 2020 QCCA 1477 (39523)
There is a publication ban in this case, and a publication ban on party; the Court file contains information not available for inspection by the public, in the context of removal of a child to Canada. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”