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
Appeal allowed and a new trial ordered after the Court found the trial judge misapplied W.(D.) and used disbelief of the accused as a makeweight for guilt.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding there was no reviewable error in the Court of Appeal’s refusal to admit fresh evidence for lack of cogency.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside convictions for sexual offences, and ordered a new trial after finding an error in the collusion instruction.
The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed Adam Davis’s appeal, finding the self-represented trial was unfair because the judge gave insufficient assistance throughout the trial.
The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial after finding the trial judge improperly treated the appellant’s silence during a police interview as a tacit admission of guilt.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the conviction appeal in part, set aside the sexual exploitation-related convictions, ordered a new trial, and upheld the possession sentence.
The Court of Appeal set aside the dismissal of a contract claim over psychiatric exam grading, holding the trial judge gave insufficient reasons and ordered a new trial.
Trial judge failed to recognize and explain the true impact of significant inconsistencies and problematic aspects of the complainant's testimony on credibility; that misappreciation was of the essence of key evidence and played a decisive role in the conviction, producing a miscarriage of justice requiring quashing of convictions and a new trial, while the variance in dates was not prejudicial given adjournment and available remedies under the Criminal Code.
Source excerpt
The trial judge improperly directed a verdict of guilt on the lesser included offence, thereby usurping the jury's exclusive role to determine guilt; because there was in effect no jury verdict, the s.686(1)(b)(iii) proviso cannot cure the error and a new trial on the s.286.1 offence is required.
Source excerpt
Appeal allowed in a personal injury damages case. The Court held the trial judge erred by treating mental health injuries as indivisible without the required causation and divisibility analysis.
Explore more
