Canada Case Law

R. v. U.P.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge correctly treated the jury's request for a rest day as an administrative matter after the jury had reached a verdict, lacked jurisdiction to order a mistrial post-discharge absent exceptional circumstances, the jury note did not demonstrate a real danger of prejudice or rushed deliberations, and no additional instructions on cross-count reasoning or prior consistent statements were required given the trial record and defence strategy.

Source excerpt

• Mistrial
• Jury deliberations
• Cross-count reasoning
• Prior consistent statements
• Jury instructions
• Appeal

Read case analysis

R. v. Hallman

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge's responses to the jury's provocation questions were deficient and in part amounted to misdirection about which conduct had to be 'sudden', creating doubt about the jury's rejection of the provocation defence; accordingly the conviction could not stand and a new trial was ordered.

Source excerpt

• Provocation
• Self-defence
• Jury questions
• Jury instructions
• Misdirection
• New trial

Read case analysis

R. v. Belleus

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge did not err: the corroborative evidence (intercepted call and phone records) rendered the only likely explanation for the deceased witness's second statement its truth under the Bradshaw framework; the limited but focused juror inquiry established no communication and the subsequent curative instruction adequately removed any reasonable apprehension of bias; the aiding and abetting charge, read as a whole, made clear the mens rea required for first degree murder, so the conviction stands.

Source excerpt

• Hearsay admissibility
• Principled exception to hearsay
• Aiding and abetting
• Jury misconduct inquiry

Read case analysis

R. v. Hayles-Wilson

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is dismissed because, although the trial judge erred by not eradicating Crown suggestions that the accused tailored his evidence, by giving a problematic two‑stage deliberation recommendation, and by failing to give a corrective instruction about motive‑to‑lie submissions, those errors were not of sufficient gravity to render the verdict unsafe in the context of an otherwise sound trial with admissions, clear jury instructions on burden and reasonable doubt, and the facts of the case; the 15‑year parole ineligibility was a fit sentence and is upheld.

Source excerpt

• Provocation
• Planning and deliberation
• Improper closing submissions
• Tailoring evidence
• Motive to lie
• Jury instructions

Read case analysis

R. v. Pope

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown’s appeal in a murder conviction case, leaving in place the order for a new trial after jury-instruction concerns.

• Manslaughter
• Second degree murder
• Jury instructions
• Mens rea/intent
• Jury-instructions
• Second-degree-murder

Read case analysis

R. v. Flannigan

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge did not err in declining a fuller post-verdict inquiry because the record showed the juror complied with instructions and there was no evidence of impropriety or rebuttal of juror impartiality; likewise the sentence was fit given the seriousness of the home invasion, the appellant's role in using a firearm and his breach of a prohibition order, so the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Jury impartiality
• Post-verdict inquiry
• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Sentencing fit and proportionality
• Firearm offences

Read case analysis

R. v. Schirmer

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a mistrial application after juror internet research, but discharged Jurors 7 and 9 and ordered a mid-trial warning to the remaining jurors.

• Mistrial
• Juror misconduct
• Mid-trial instruction
• Publication ban
• Juror-misconduct
• Mid-trial-instruction

Read case analysis

R. v. Chen

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the jury charge on sexual assault credibility relied on stereotypes and risked shifting the burden of proof.

• Credibility assessment
• Behavioural myths and stereotypes
• Burden of proof
• Jury instructions
• Publication ban
• New trial

Read case analysis

R. v. Maestrello

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Cumulative errors in the trial judge's final instructions — notably an erroneous post‑offence conduct direction that risked backward reasoning and a deficient response to a jury question which compounded that error — deprived the accused of a fair trial; convictions set aside and a new trial ordered.

Source excerpt

• First degree murder
• Attempted murder
• Aiding and abetting
• Vetrovec warning
• Post‑offence conduct
• Jury instructions

Read case analysis

R. v. Billing

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed in an aggravated assault case. The Court upheld the jury charge, finding no error in the self-defence instructions, including the omission of a mistaken-belief and Baxter instruction.

• Self-defence
• Mistaken belief
• Jury instructions
• Proportionality
• Baxter instruction
• Charge adequacy

Read case analysis