Ontario criminal | Charter of Rights
FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE
Constitutional challenge to Mutual Legal Assistance dismissed
V and L were subject of ex parte applications for gathering and sending orders under ss. 18 and 20 of Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. V and L argued that ex parte presumption for those proceedings violated ss. 7 and 8 of Charter. Application judge dismissed application for declaration of invalidity. Appeal dismissed. Applications for gathering and sending orders were investigative and not adjudicative proceedings. Ex parte presumption was for valid policy reasons including need for confidentiality and expedition. Act contained sufficient safeguards to comply with ss. 7 and 8 of Charter.
United States of America v. Viscomi (Jun. 30, 2015, Ont. C.A., Janet Simmons J.A., E.A. Cronk J.A., and R.A. Blair J.A., File No. CA C57211, C57910, C59973, C59982) Decision at 120 W.C.B. (2d) 538 was affirmed. Decision at 107 W.C.B. (2d) 377 was reversed. 123 W.C.B. (2d) 347.
Constitutional challenge to Mutual Legal Assistance dismissed
V and L were subject of ex parte applications for gathering and sending orders under ss. 18 and 20 of Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. V and L argued that ex parte presumption for those proceedings violated ss. 7 and 8 of Charter. Application judge dismissed application for declaration of invalidity. Appeal dismissed. Applications for gathering and sending orders were investigative and not adjudicative proceedings. Ex parte presumption was for valid policy reasons including need for confidentiality and expedition. Act contained sufficient safeguards to comply with ss. 7 and 8 of Charter.
United States of America v. Viscomi (Jun. 30, 2015, Ont. C.A., Janet Simmons J.A., E.A. Cronk J.A., and R.A. Blair J.A., File No. CA C57211, C57910, C59973, C59982) Decision at 120 W.C.B. (2d) 538 was affirmed. Decision at 107 W.C.B. (2d) 377 was reversed. 123 W.C.B. (2d) 347.
