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 Supreme Court of Canada held that discretionary driving prohibitions under s. 320.24(4) do not apply to convictions for criminal negligence under ss. 220 or 221.
The appeal is dismissed because this Court previously affirmed the trial judge's finding of guilt and issued a final order remitting the matter for sentencing only; the trial judge had no jurisdiction to re-open the conviction, and any attempt to relitigate the guilt was a collateral attack barred by res judicata and the doctrine of functus officio.
Source excerpt
Sentencing reasons in a child sexual offence case: Count 3 was stayed under Kienapple, and the accused received 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment concurrently on Counts 1 and 2.
The court held the trial judge committed an error of law by relying on non-evidentiary information (that the complainant traveled to testify) in a manner constituting impermissible oath-helping to resolve a material inconsistency about whether the complainant touched the appellant’s penis; that error undermined the conviction for invitation to sexual touching and requires a new trial on that count, while the remainder of the credibility assessment and convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault were not tainted and are upheld.
Source excerpt
The court held that post-conviction revocation of bail under s.523(1)(b)(ii) is permissible without the Crown showing cause where the trial judge exercises discretion based on changed circumstances; here, material delay (approximately six months) and the contextual facts meant continued release would undermine public confidence under s.515(10)(c), therefore bail was revoked and the accused remanded pending sentencing.
Source excerpt
The court upheld Tang’s catch-and-retain conviction, but set aside his possession conviction under Kienapple. Gao’s obstruction conviction was affirmed.
The Court of Appeal set aside a dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence, ordering a new hearing after finding an error in the s. 753(1)(b) risk analysis.
The court stayed the unlawful confinement conviction (s.279(2)) under Kienapple; imposed a four year custodial sentence for kidnapping (s.279(1)) and a three year custodial sentence for being an accessory after the fact to murder (s.240), ordered the two sentences to run consecutively for an aggregate term of seven years, granted remand credit at 1.5 days per day (calculated as three years and five months), resulting in a remaining custodial term of three years and seven months, and ordered a prohibition on direct or indirect contact with Ronald Sock and Liam Thompson pursuant to s.743.21.
Source excerpt
The convictions were upheld because the trial judge's reasons sufficed to permit appellate review and the similar fact evidence corroborated the complainant; however the sentence was set aside because the judge imposed a sentence exceeding the Crown's position without giving the parties an opportunity to respond, an error of principle causing procedural unfairness, authorizing appellate reassessment and substitution of a fit sentence of 44 months for the present offence to be served consecutive to the 28 month sentence, producing a global six year sentence.
Source excerpt
The trial judge materially misapprehended the appellant’s evidence about his post-practice routine and gave undue weight to the appellant’s demeanour in assessing credibility; those errors were central to the judge’s rejection of the appellant’s testimony and therefore warranted setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial.
Source excerpt
Explore more
