Canada Case Law

R. v. S.J.A.

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Fresh evidence was admitted and the appellant's convictions were set aside because the trial judge materially misapprehended the appellant's evidence, rendering the verdict unsafe; a stay of proceedings was not warranted because the high threshold for a stay ('clearest of cases') was not met and a new trial is an adequate and proportionate remedy.

Source excerpt

• Stay of proceedings
• Misapprehension of evidence
• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Abuse of process
• Retrial
• Judicial misconduct

Read case analysis

Patel v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The appropriate standard of review for the CJC executive director's screening decisions is reasonableness; the executive director reasonably concluded the complaints raised issues of judicial decision-making and appellate remedies were available; there was no breach of procedural fairness; the Federal Court was correct to defer and dismiss the applications; appeals dismissed with costs.

Source excerpt

• Standard of review
• Screening decisions
• Recusal
• Cjc ethical principles
• Legitimate expectation

Read case analysis

McIntosh v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court struck Adan McIntosh’s statement of claim without leave to amend, finding no reasonable cause of action and an abuse of process.

• Charter damages
• Motion to strike under rule 221
• Simplified action rules (rules 292-299)
• Security for costs
• Abuse of process
• Collateral attack

Read case analysis

R. v. Chow

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The British Columbia Supreme Court allowed an appeal from a sexual assault conviction, finding the trial judge’s repeated interventions created an appearance of unfairness.

• Sexual assault
• Consent
• Intoxication
• Judicial intervention
• Appearance of unfairness
• Trial fairness

Read case analysis

Murphy vs. Nova Scotia (Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner)

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Recusal denied because plaintiff did not meet the high objective threshold for reasonable apprehension of bias; the court granted limited procedural accommodations but found no cogent evidence of bias. The pleaded claims against defendants represented by the Attorney General are declared nullities because plaintiff failed to comply with mandatory PACA requirements (two months' prior written notice served on the Attorney General, correct style and service), and informal emails one week before filing do not satisfy the statute; requests for interim state funding, addition of default-judgment mo…

Source excerpt

• Proceedings against the crown act compliance
• Recusal/reasonable apprehension of bias
• Nullity of pleadings
• Service of process
• Fee waiver and interim funding
• Motions practice

Read case analysis

R. v. Walton

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is allowed and a new trial ordered because the trial judge intervened excessively — assuming the role of counsel, cross-examining the accused during her examination-in-chief and in tandem with the Crown, disrupting defence counsel’s presentation and creating an appearance of bias — conduct that undermined the fairness of the jury trial and requires setting aside convictions even if the verdict might be supportable on the evidence.

Source excerpt

• Judicial intervention in witness questioning
• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Trial judge neutrality
• W.(d.) charge
• Right to a fair trial

Read case analysis

Mcintosh v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed Adan McIntosh’s judicial review of three Canadian Judicial Council screening decisions, finding no procedural unfairness or unreasonableness.

• Judicial council screening
• Judicial ethics
• Vexatious complaints
• Right to be heard
• Reasonableness standard
• Judicial-review

Read case analysis

Masjoody v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

Judicial review dismissed: the Federal Court upheld the CJC’s screening decision dismissing a complaint as frivolous, vexatious, and outside its mandate.

• Screening and dismissal of complaints
• Frivolous and vexatious pleadings
• Judges act s.90(1)
• Presumption of judicial integrity
• Admissibility of evidence in judicial review
• Judicial-review

Read case analysis

Swanson v. MacKinnon

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed in a motor vehicle injury case. The Court of Appeal held that, although some trial judge interventions were problematic, they did not make the trial unfair.

• Trial fairness
• Judicial intervention
• Expert evidence admissibility
• Contingency deductions
• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Trial-fairness

Read case analysis

Johnson v. Canadian Tennis Association

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed Christopher Johnson’s appeal from an order rejecting further discovery questions, held the bias allegations unproven, refused fresh evidence, and awarded $4,000 in costs.

• Rule 97(b) discovery
• Examinations for discovery
• Collateral attack
• Abuse of process
• Judicial impartiality
• Fresh evidence on appeal

Read case analysis