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 found Renn Broe Cook guilty of break and enter with intent, holding the Crown proved specific intent to commit criminal harassment despite some evidence of mental disturbance.
The court dismissed an application to quash, divide, or particularize a six-year sexual assault count, finding it was a valid single transaction and no exceptional prejudice was shown.
The court dismissed a pre-trial application for particulars, holding the indictment and extensive disclosure sufficiently informed the accused of the transactions alleged.
The indictment properly charged a conspiracy to defraud the public because 'public' can describe a segment of the community including operators of big box stores and corporations are not excluded; the appellant suffered no prejudice from the indictment's form; therefore the conviction must stand and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed defence applications to quash conspiracy counts or require further particulars, holding the indictment was sufficiently specific and properly differentiated.
The court dismissed a pre-trial application for particulars in a criminal organization prosecution, finding the indictment and disclosure gave enough notice for a fair trial.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: the trial judge did not err in his credibility findings and in admitting similar fact evidence of the six former speech therapy patients (excluding G.T.) because probative value outweighed prejudice and there was no air of reality to collusion/tainting; the indictment as to G.H. was sufficiently particularized given disclosure and records; and the six-year sentence was within the appropriate range for prolonged grooming and abuse of trust.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal upheld Eugene Bekar’s convictions for uttering threats, rejecting arguments about fairness, jury instructions, indictment sufficiency, and trial rulings.
Crown counsel's cross-examination and jury address were so improper and denigrating as to create a real danger of miscarriage of justice; combined with a misdirection on the particulars of count #10, the convictions on counts 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are quashed and a new trial ordered on those counts on an amended indictment reflecting the particulars given by Crown counsel in opening; other issues noted for retrial but not all appellate arguments sustained.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 32(1)(c) of the Combines Investigation Act was not unconstitutionally vague and that its mens rea requirement satisfied s. 7.
Explore more
