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
Crown appeal from acquittals under ss. 151 and 271 of the Criminal Code dismissed. The Court found a jury-charge error on unknown evidence, but no material bearing on the verdict.
The trial judge did not err: the appellant's holding-cell statement was voluntary because she had an operating mind and knew she was speaking to an authority and the consequences; the jury charge adequately framed accident as an unintended consequence that could negate the mens rea for murder and reduce conviction to manslaughter; and the 13-year parole ineligibility was within the trial judge's discretion given the appellant's significant criminal record and the case-specific factors.
Source excerpt
Convictions were set aside and a new trial ordered because the Crown improperly used expert evidence beyond its admitted scope to bolster credibility, the trial judge failed to intervene or give limiting instructions, and substantive errors in W.(D.) direction and improper cross-examination together created a material risk that the jury could not properly assess the complainant’s credibility, producing a miscarriage of justice.
Source excerpt
The Court held the trial judge's jury charge was adequate in context, the application judge correctly allocated a portion of the delay to the defence under the Jordan framework and reasonably concluded there was no unreasonable delay, and the trial judge did not err in declining to find an abuse of a position of trust; accordingly the conviction and the sentence appeal were dismissed and the convictions and sentence were affirmed.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court of Canada held that failure to attend trial is not presumptively post-offence conduct and restored the convictions.
The court held jurors may submit written questions to witnesses if tightly controlled, limited to clarification, and screened for admissibility to preserve fairness.
The Yukon Court of Appeal dismissed Joseph Townsend’s conviction appeal, holding the trial judge’s comments about jury sequestration did not improperly pressure the jury.
Appeal from a second degree murder conviction allowed because the jury charge blurred the line between murder and manslaughter and risked confusing intent.
Mid-trial ruling on after-the-fact conduct evidence: parts of Deleeuw’s evidence were admitted, with a caution to the jury and a possible limiting instruction later.
The trial judge's charge contained legal errors—specifically an aiding/abetting instruction that omitted the required subjective foresight element, failure to direct the jury to determine when the principal's intention was formed (critical to the aider's knowledge), and an unclear and misleading direction on post-offence conduct—which together rendered the trial unfair; accordingly the conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.
Source excerpt
Explore more
