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 of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the Crown’s appeal from acquittals, finding no error of law in the trial judge’s credibility, reliability, or reasonable-doubt analysis.
The trial judge did not engage in uneven scrutiny and, although he did not expressly analyze reliability, his reasons demonstrate he found the complainant both credible and reliable and legitimately rejected the appellant's exculpatory explanations; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court held the trial judge's reasons were functionally sufficient, did not involve impermissible speculation about intoxication or memory, properly distinguished credibility from reliability producing different outcomes on two counts, and applied the principles of the W.(D.) framework in substance; therefore the conviction on the second s.271 offence is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court of Canada restored David Edward Furey’s convictions, holding the trial judge properly admitted hearsay from a deceased complainant under the principled approach.
The court acquitted Ross William Curtis on three sexual-offence counts after finding the complainant generally credible but left with reasonable doubt from inconsistencies and lack of corroboration.
The Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because the complainant's account was unreliable and inconsistent, admitted to assumptions and blackouts, and independent evidence (witness WM and the accuseds) established a brief ten-minute presence at the bear site and limited alcohol consistent with the accuseds' accounts; on that basis the judge was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted both accused.
Source excerpt
The appeal is allowed because the trial judge improperly used the complainant's prior consistent statements and the father's threatening incident for the forbidden purpose of enhancing the complainant's general trustworthiness beyond their permissible use to rebut a recent fabrication allegation or provide limited contextual narrative; that misuse was material to the conviction on the earlier touching counts and requires a new trial (the verdicts were otherwise not unreasonable).
Source excerpt
The trial judge correctly applied the cogency test for fresh evidence by assessing whether the proposed Day Timer entries, in context with the totality of trial evidence, could reasonably be expected to affect the verdict; he found they would not and his discretionary decision to dismiss the application was reasonable and entitled to deference, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's findings that the complainant was credible and reliable and that communications with his mother did not amount to collusion were open to her on the evidence, and those findings supported the convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.
Source excerpt
The hearsay statements of Trevor Hanna and Michael Coombs are admissible for the truth of their contents because necessity is conceded and substantive reliability is established: the statements were spontaneous, innocuous, made to officers who accurately recorded them, the declarants were sober with clear recall, the statements mutually corroborate and are corroborated by Jason Hallett's testimony, alternative explanations (collusion, modelling, fabrication) are implausible in the circumstances, and the probative value is not outweighed by prejudice to the accused.
Source excerpt
Explore more
