Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Charter of Rights - Criminal law - Evidence - Admissibility - Hearsay - Conspiracy - Fresh evidence - Presumption of innocence - Right to a fair hearing - Fundamental justice - Whether the appellate court erred in its interpretation of the first part of the test in R. v. Carter, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 938 - Whether the appellate court erred in refusing to permit the introduction of fresh evidence of the advantages received by repentant witnesses for agreeing to testify against the Applicant - Whether the appellate court erred in determining that the admission of evidence of prior acts of bad conduct did not mar the fairness of the proceedings - Did the appellate court err in confirming the constitutionality of old s. 467.1 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46?

The Applicant was arrested in March 2001 as part of a large police operation aimed at the Hells Angels “Nomads” and the “Rockers” of Montreal. The charges brought against the Applicant and his co-accuseds related to activities carried out as part of a “war” to take control of territory for the purposes of the drug trade. In a trial by judge and jury, the Applicant and his co-accuseds were each found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder contrary to s. 465(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46; trafficking in prohibited substances contrary to paragraphs 5(1) and (3) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19; and participation in gang activities contrary to the old s. 467.1 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. The Applicant appealed his conviction on the basis that s. 467.1 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional, and that the trial judge erred by, inter alia, admitting hearsay evidence on the pretext of proving a conspiracy, admitting bad character evidence which was highly prejudicial, and misdirecting the jury.