Jeffrey E. Kaus
Jeffery E. Couse — Toronto criminal trial and appellate lawyer at Edward H. Royle & Partners; former Crown Law Office–Criminal counsel who argued for the appellant at the Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Bhatti).
2
APPEARANCES
2
PODCASTS
Sep 22, 2026
Richard WagnerUNKNOWN
that there is a publication ban in this matter pursuant to section 486.41 of the criminal code.
Jeffrey E. KausGUEST
I'm going to start with the case of Hodgson, which is at tab 2B of the appellant's condensed book, because I think this case has some important insights for this appeal.
Jeffrey E. KausGUEST
In Hodgson, this court cautioned about the risk of expanding Crown appeals beyond the scope of Section 676.
Jeffrey E. KausGUEST
And Justices Moreau and Martin made four points that I think are important for this appeal.
Jeffrey E. KausGUEST
First, expanding the scope of Section 676 isn't something that we want to do because it offends the principle against double jeopardy.
24 MINS LATER
Richard KasirerUNKNOWN
And then the question is, do we have a new trial or do we substitute a conviction? Justice Fairbourn is explaining why she's substituting a conviction.
Nicholas KasirerGUEST
Uh, uh, do you have a way of helping us sort out the path to take for a general warrant i-in this particular instance?
Jeffrey E. KausGUEST
Um, the, uh, I, I think two, uh, considerations, uh, would, uh, guide, um, how, uh, police, uh, should act and courts should interpret warrants and, um, uh, in the manner of their execution.
Jeffrey E. KausGUEST
Um, the first is, uh, foreseeability, um, and that applies to, uh, the police.
Jeffrey E. KausGUEST
Um, the police are the ones who are proposing, uh, this investigative technique.
Jeffrey E. KausGUEST
It's not one, uh, that's already in the criminal code, otherwise they wouldn't be, uh, proposing it.
Jeffrey E. KausGUEST
And so they're going to know, um, how, uh, uh, the search, uh, might encounter, uh, practical difficulties.
58 MINS LATER
speaker_0NARRATOR
Mr. Gaus, any reply?