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 held that, viewed in the context of the entire record and counsel's submissions, the trial judge's reasons were adequate and the appellant's apology could properly be considered as confirmatory evidence in the absence of an alternative explanation; accordingly the convictions were upheld.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed Fred Doe’s appeal from conviction, finding the trial judge gave adequate assistance to a self-represented accused and sufficient reasons on party liability.
The court held that, given the sensitivity of the issues implicating judicial independence and multiple forms of privilege, the appropriate and proportionate course was to permit the panel alone to review the unredacted ELO communications (including privileged material), the proposed index and summary in sealed envelopes in order to obtain necessary context to determine whether disclosure beyond outward-facing materials is required in the interests of justice under s.683(1). Three sealed copies are to be delivered to the court's ELO and opened only by the presiding judges.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge did not misapprehend material evidence and provided reasons that, read contextually, adequately explain acceptance of the complainant's account and rejection of the appellant's; the findings were open on the record and no legal error or palpable and overriding error justified appellate intervention.
Source excerpt
The order of the case conference judge was set aside because his reasons were inadequate and there was no evidentiary record to permit meaningful appellate review; absent an adequate record and intelligible reasons the Court could not decide the appeal on the merits and allowed the appeal and cross-appeal.
Source excerpt
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed Blake Everett Dergez’s conviction appeal and sentence appeal, upholding findings that he deliberately doused a police officer with gasoline and issued threats.
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's credibility findings were available on the record, any alleged misapprehensions were immaterial to the ultimate credibility determination, and the judge correctly summarized and applied the law while providing adequate reasons for appellate review.
Source excerpt
The trial judge did not err: cross-count similar act evidence was admissible and properly used to establish a situation-specific propensity supporting the actus reus; the oral reasons, read in context, were sufficient; credibility findings were reasonable and entitled to deference; absence of evidence of motive and the prior consistent statement were properly considered (the latter to rebut recent fabrication); and the global 3.5 year sentence met the totality principle and was not unfit.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held the trial judge did not err: he did not reverse the onus by attributing memory gaps to trauma, appropriately considered demeanour and lack of embellishment as contextual credibility factors alongside independent confirmatory evidence (photographs of injuries and discovery of gun and ammunition), and provided adequate reasons linking the evidence to the convictions; the unsafe storage convictions were properly supported by a marked departure from the standard of care.
Source excerpt
The trial judge’s reasons were inadequate on credibility and fact-finding, she misapplied the s.34 self-defence analysis (including a misplaced reliance on photographs and failure to articulate the precise threat faced), and therefore committed legal errors such that the convictions could not stand; appeal allowed and new trial ordered.
Source excerpt
Explore more
