Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal in R. v. Khodayar, holding that Schertzer governed and that s. 13 did not protect the transcripts.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding error in admitting a child’s hearsay statement under the principled exception and ordering a new trial on Count 2.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a conviction for the May 2023 sexual assault, finding no reversible misapprehension of evidence or insufficiency of reasons.
Leave to intervene was granted because both BWSS and CDAS demonstrated a public interest in the specific issue of abuse of process as it relates to relitigation of findings from prior criminal proceedings, each has a representative base and a unique, non-duplicative perspective that will assist the court, and neither seeks to expand the scope of the appeal; accordingly, intervention was permitted on limited terms (factum page limits and filing deadlines).
Source excerpt
The Court dismissed the appeal: the authorizing officer had objectively reasonable and probable grounds for the warrantless arrest based on a corroborated Crime Stoppers tip and surveillance; the initial 47‑minute delay in facilitating counsel was reasonable in all the circumstances; although the trial judge erred in parts of his s.24(2) assessment of seriousness, a fresh balancing of Grant factors still favoured admission because the impact on the accused was minimal and the drug evidence was reliable and central to the Crown's case.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from firearm convictions, upholding a late Leaney application, the s. 11(b) delay analysis, and the identity findings.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a sexual assault appeal, finding the trial judge’s comments and interruptions did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Tribunal granted leave to file both the Tarlton responding affidavit and the Robles reply affidavit because each adduced specific, circumscribed factual evidence relevant to the s.103.1 leave-stage screening, the Robles material was directly responsive to ambiguous and potentially misleading statements in Tarlton, and no prejudice was shown.
Source excerpt
The convictions were set aside because the trial judge, in assessing credibility integral to conviction, relied in part on the appellant's character and discreditable conduct revealed in group chat messages in a manner that constituted prejudicial propensity reasoning; however the dismissal of the s.11(b) application was upheld because the complainant's illness constituted a discrete exceptional circumstance that mitigated the delay and the appellant's late filing weighed against a stay.
Source excerpt
Cumulative procedural errors — summary denial of the March 6 request without reasons, proceeding ex parte on March 7 without adequate inquiry or justification, and continuing the trial after March 8 rather than declaring a mistrial — deprived the accused of a fair trial; the unfairness is prejudicial and not susceptible to cure under s.686(1)(b); convictions are set aside and a new trial ordered.
Source excerpt
Explore more
