Askov (1983-1990)
Issue:  11(b)  rt. to trial within a reasonable time
In this decision, court developed the “Askov” test for unreasonable delay. The test is to consider
    -length of delay
    -explanation of delay
    -was there a clear waiver of right to trial within reasonable time?
    -has the delay prejudiced accused (hurt the case of the accused)?
In this case:
    -length of delay is unreasonable
    -the cases of Askov et al have been prejudiced
    -explanation:  Delays in Peel are shocking.  Relies on Carl Baar’s evidence
    -no clear waiver of right

Baar’s 1993 article commenting on Askov:  judges misinterpreted the stats (Can Bar Rev 1993).

Rodriguez (1993)

S. 241(b) of criminal code:  prohibits assisted suicide.
Rodriguez:  dying of Lugerrig’s disease.
    Wanted declaration that 241(b) violates her s. 7 right to security of person, & s. 12 rights (cruel treatment) & s. 15 rights (equality),
    because it prevents her from arranging an assisted suicide once life becomes unbearable, and she will be physically unable to end her life.
Majority (5) Sopinka
    -no infringement of any rights.  Even if s. 15 violated, s. 1 saves.
Minority: (3 dec’s)
    -McLachlin & L’Heureux-Dubé:  s. 241(b) violates fundamental justice (s. 7), & can’t be saved by s. 1.
    -Lamer:  s. 241(b) violates s. 15, & can’t be saved by s.1.

Mills (1999)

Issue:  Privacy vs. right to fair trial in sexual assault cases.
O’Connor decision of SCC in 1995: Ct required 2-step process if accused wants to obtain the private counselling records of the complainant.
    1. Acc’d to show pte rec’s likely to be of value in defence.
    2. Judge will release records if satisfied that:
        -Private record is necessary for full defence
        -Extent of reasonable expectation of privacy allows
        -Request for record not based on bias
        -Victim’s dignity or sec of person not unreasonably affected

In 1997, Parliament enacted Bill C-46 in response.  This legislation did not exactly follow the advice given by the Court to Parliament in the O'Connor case.

For private records to be produced, C-46:  requires
    -application in writing by accused for pte records
    -judge holds in camera hearing re whether to review
    -if necessary, judge reviews the private record
    -judge decides whether record or parts should be provided to accused
As well, the judge can order restrictions on media publication.

Court:  advocated a dialogue with legislature.  In this case, Parliament had carefully considered the Court's advice, and rejected some of it.
    However, the plan Parliament devised was nevertheless in accord with the Charter.  C-46 is an acceptable balance between the victim's right to
    privacy and the accused's right to a fair trial.

Hunter v. Southam (1984)

Impugned:  Search of Edmonton Journal in 1982 by Combines Investigation Officers
S. 8 of Charter (right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure):  Dickson says purpose is to protect the right to privacy
A reasonable search is
    -Authorized by a statute
    -Conducted after a search warrant issued, unless police in “hot pursuit”

Search warrant must be issued by an impartial party, which must be satisfied that there are probable grounds that an offence has been committed.

In this case, those who issued the search warrant were not independent, but members of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission who had in interest in the outcome.  As well, their test was not “probable grounds” that an offence had been committed, but a vague possibility.