Canada Case Law

R. v. Campione

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court held the jury charge, including the Ross passage, correctly and usefully summarized the law on moral wrongfulness and capacity; Dr. Hucker's evidence did not materially misstate the law nor require correction by the trial judge; the caution regarding Dr. McMaster was an example within a broader instruction that applied to both experts; therefore no trial error warranted quashing the convictions and the appeal was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Not criminally responsible (ncr)
• Moral wrongfulness
• Expert opinion admissibility
• Jury instructions/charge
• Appeal review

Read case analysis

Picavet v. Clute

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Rule 63.01 did not operate to automatically stay the trial judge's order for payment out because the payment was a housekeeping disposition of funds found to belong to the respondent and not a judgment debt created by the order; the appellant failed to satisfy the three‑part test for a discretionary stay under Rule 63.02 (no serious issue shown likely to succeed on appeal, no irreparable harm demonstrated, balance of convenience favoured the respondent); accordingly the motion for a stay was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.

Source excerpt

• Vendor take back mortgage
• Payment out of trust
• Stay pending appeal
• Rule 63.01 automatic stay
• Rule 63.02 discretionary stay
• Gift versus contract

Read case analysis

R. v. Galloway

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Trial judge erred as a matter of law in finding exigent circumstances under s.529.3 justified a warrantless entry by Constable Hope; accordingly the acquittal on count #1 as to Hope was set aside and a new trial ordered. The acquittal of Galloway on count #1 was upheld because the judge reasonably found Galloway intervened to assist a fellow officer and was justified under Cluett. The acquittals on count #2 (assault with a weapon for the taser in the cell) for both respondents were upheld because the judge reasonably found the use of force in the lock-up was necessary and justified under s.25.

Source excerpt

• Assault
• Assault with a weapon
• Section 25 defence (use of force)
• Warrantless entry
• Exigent circumstances
• Feeney warrant

Read case analysis

James Bay Ry. Co. v. Armstrong

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada held it had no jurisdiction to hear the railway company’s appeal from a High Court award under the Railway Act, and dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal.

• Expropriation
• Railway act appeals
• Curia designata
• Superior court definition
• Jurisdiction to hear appeals
• Railway-act-appeals

Read case analysis