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 Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Vivian Hamilton’s conviction appeal, rejected Charter and verdict challenges, and dismissed the sentence appeal after granting leave.
Federal Court granted judicial review of a TRV refusal, finding the officer’s reasons were unreasonable for failing to engage with the applicants’ evidence of ties to India.
The trial judge did not err: the evidence only supported that the respondent knew the victim was shot, not that he subjectively knew or strongly suspected the victim was probably dead and deliberately avoided inquiry. Wilful blindness requires suspicion of probability and deliberate avoidance; the record supported recklessness or indifference at best. There was also no air of reality to accessory-after-the-fact to attempted murder because the evidence did not raise a live dispute that the principal did not cause the victim's death. Therefore the directed verdict of acquittal on the accessory-…
Source excerpt
Appeal dismissed: trial judge correctly declined to leave accessory-after-fact to attempted murder to the jury because there was no air of reality to attempted murder on the trial evidence (no live issue on causation); although attempted murder can in rare cases be an included offence under ss.660/662, where the principal's acts indisputably caused death a jury cannot reasonably convict of attempt and thus accessory-after-fact to attempted murder was not available.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was granted on three issues because the proper identification of the actus reus for worker offences under the OHSA, the proper approach to concurrent/overlapping responsibilities, and the role of private contracts in defining assigned responsibilities raise novel and significant questions of law that affect public interest and the administration of justice; leave was denied on the due diligence/foreseeability ground because the appeal judge correctly analysed that law and no injustice flowed from the trial judge's reasoning.
Source excerpt
The directed verdict was denied because the Crown adduced sufficient circumstantial and after-the-fact evidence—texts and surveillance showing luring and timing, absence of expected funds at the accused's residence, blood evidence, shutdown of video system, cleaning and disposal activity, and post-incident communications—such that a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer planning and deliberation and convict of first degree murder.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed Marc Andre Scheirer’s summary conviction appeal, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel, no basis for a directed verdict, and no miscarriage of justice.
The court dismissed a directed-verdict application in a break-and-enter case, holding the Crown’s circumstantial evidence could support a conviction.
The Court refused to admit proposed fresh evidence because it was inadmissible hearsay, was available but not called at trial as part of deliberate tactical decisions, and was not reasonably capable of belief; the jury was properly instructed and the convictions for Shawntez and Daniel were reasonable and supported by direct and circumstantial evidence; leave to appeal sentence for Daniel was granted but the consecutive sentence decision was upheld and the sentence appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
Appeal dismissed: the Kienapple principle did not apply because there were no multiple convictions for the same wrong; the trial judge correctly directed an acquittal on the s.151(a) count for lack of evidence; sufficient evidence existed to convict on the sexual assault count; and issue estoppel did not bar the sexual assault conviction.
Source excerpt
Explore more
