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 held that a s. 517 Criminal Code non-publication order prevented public release of its reasons until the ban ends.
Although the net delay exceeded the Jordan presumptive ceiling after allowed deductions, the Crown established discrete exceptional events and that the case was particularly complex; the complexity (voluminous and intertwined disclosure, central incentivized Vetrovec witness, numerous and novel pretrial applications, extensive inadvertent‑disclosure litigation) justified the remaining delay and the Crown demonstrated a reasonable concrete plan to minimize delay; accordingly the s.24(1) stay was not warranted and the s.11(b) application was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Statement #3 is inadmissible in the Crown's case-in-chief because it has little probative value regarding the charged homicide and carries a substantial risk of unfair moral prejudice that cannot reliably be cured by a jury instruction, particularly given the Crown's failure to show how the evidence would be used or to propose an appropriate limiting instruction.
Source excerpt
Voir dire ruling admitting most of the Crown’s discreditable conduct evidence in a first-degree murder case, subject to limits, cautionary instructions, and possible reconsideration at trial.
Pre-trial voir dire on recognition evidence in a first-degree murder case. The court held Howard Kwan’s identification evidence admissible, leaving reliability and weight to trial.
Bail application in a murder case. The accused was detained because the court found the proposed release plan inadequate and the secondary and tertiary grounds were not met.
The court held that a s. 525 detention review was unavailable because the trial had begun when evidence was heard in a voir dire.
Detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code. The court upheld pre-trial detention, finding a substantial risk of further offences and no disproportion in custody.
Applying St-Cloud and the Palmer criteria, the court found the proffered evidence was not sufficiently new, specific or credible to meet the Palmer test and would not have changed the bail judge's assessment; accordingly the s.515(10)(b) and (c) grounds for detention remained satisfied and the bail review was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The gap between the December 18, 2012 withdrawal and the April 8, 2016 information is excluded from the s.11(b) computation because Mr. Buckley was not subject to the judicial process nor imminent further charges during the gap; excluding the gap yields total post‑charge delay of 31 months 20 days, from which defence delay/waiver of 5.5 months is deducted leaving 26 months, which is below the 30‑month Jordan ceiling; accordingly there is no s.11(b) breach and the s.24(1) stay is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
