36162 The Queen v. Safarzadeh-Markhali (Charter of Rights— Criminal law — Sentencing)
On appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario pronounced September 10, 2014. The applicant was charged with possession of marijuana and firearms-related offences. He appeared before a justice of the peace for a bail hearing. He did not wish to show cause for release and consented to detention. The justice of the peace endorsed the Information pursuant to s. 515(9.1) of the Criminal Code, noting his criminal record. Pursuant to ss. 719(3) and 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code, where such an endorsement has been made, credit upon sentencing for pre-sentence time spent in custody is limited to a 1-to-1 ratio and a 1.5-to-1 ratio is not permitted. The applicant applied for a declaration that ss. 719(3) and 719(3.1), as applied in this case, breach s. 7 of the Charter. The Ontario Court of Justice declared that a portion of s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code violates s. 7 ofCharter and is of no force and effect. The Court gave 1.5-to-1 credit for time served before sentencing. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
36107 In the Matter of an Application for Warrants Pursuant to Sections 12 and 21 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-23 and Cameron (National security – Security intelligence – Warrants)
On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal pronounced July 31, 2014. In 2009, a warrant was issued permitting the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (“CSIS”) to intercept, within Canada, the telecommunications of two Canadian citizens travelling abroad. In 2013, it came to the attention of the issuing judge that, where similar warrants were issued, it had become the practice for CSIS and for the Communications Security Establishment (“CSE”) to make requests to foreign partner agencies for assistance in the targeting of the communications of Canadians abroad. The court recalled counsel to address two issues: (1) whether the Attorney General had met his duty of candour when applying for such warrants, and in particular, whether the assistance provided by CSE in tasking foreign partners should have been disclosed; and (2) whether s. 12 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act authorizes CSIS to engage the assistance of foreign agencies in intercepting the communications of Canadians abroad. The court found that the Attorney General had breached his duty of candour and that s. 12 of the CSIS Act did not authorize CSIS to engage the assistance of foreign agencies. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.