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 jury's awards, including zero past income loss alongside substantial awards for other heads, were reconcilable on the evidence; Rule 12-6(7) was therefore not engaged and no retrial was ordered; judgment is to be entered in accordance with the jury verdict, subject to a possible s.83 Insurance (Vehicle) Act application by the defendants within 30 days.
Source excerpt
Fresh evidence was admitted and the appellant's convictions were set aside because the trial judge materially misapprehended the appellant's evidence, rendering the verdict unsafe; a stay of proceedings was not warranted because the high threshold for a stay ('clearest of cases') was not met and a new trial is an adequate and proportionate remedy.
Source excerpt
The trial judge committed an error of law by refusing to consider permissible inferences from the complainant's inconsistent testimony about avoidance, having misapplied the law on myths and stereotypes; that error materially tainted the credibility assessment and the conviction, warranting setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial.
Source excerpt
Mistrials do not reset the Jordan clock; delay after a mistrial must be assessed under the Jordan framework and the Crown bears the burden to prove the mistrial was a discrete exceptional circumstance (unforeseeable/unavoidable and not reasonably mitigable) to justify above-the-ceiling delay; in this case the mistrial resulted from a shared good-faith legal mistake, qualified as a discrete exceptional circumstance, net delay fell below the ceiling after deductions, and the trial judge’s timely corrective instructions cured prejudice from the Crown’s question, so s.11(b) was not breached and t…
Source excerpt
The court declined to exercise its s.679(7.1) jurisdiction and directed the applicant to attend the Superior Court because the Crown demonstrated a legitimate need to cross-examine the surety that could not be accommodated in this court before the scheduled hearing and the trial court is better placed to conduct the contested bail hearing; the Crown's undertaking not to seek the applicant's immediate arrest mitigated the risk of injustice from surrendering to custody.
Source excerpt
Court Martial Appeal Court allowed the Crown’s appeal, set aside acquittals, and ordered a retrial on fraud-related charges against Major Ellison.
On the balance of probabilities the applicant established that repeated, extensive and prejudicial publicity (including publication of inadmissible evidence and prior convictions) combined with Kentville's relatively small jury pool and two prior local trials created a probable inability to obtain a fair and impartial jury in that district; procedural safeguards could not be relied upon to cure the demonstrated prejudice, so a s.599(1)(a) change of venue to Halifax was required.
Source excerpt
The appellate court found two errors essential to the trial judge's credibility assessment — a material misapprehension about the availability of the witness's truck and irrational reasoning faulting the witness for not admitting ownership to police despite self-incrimination risks — and concluded the verdict could not be supported; accordingly the conviction was set aside and a retrial ordered.
Source excerpt
The Court upheld the trial judge’s interpretation that the contract obligated Clean Harbors only to make available the insurance policies it obtained and maintained (not to procure full first‑party fire coverage), dismissing the breach of contract claim; however the Court found legal error in the trial judge’s treatment of the negligent misrepresentation claim and ordered a new trial on that issue because the trial judge did not make the necessary factual finding whether a representation was made and misapplied legal tests for negligent misrepresentation.
Source excerpt
The trial judge committed an error of law by repeatedly discrediting the appellant's testimony on the basis that it was tailored to fit disclosure and prior evidence; that error was not harmless because the tailoring inference played a large role in the adverse credibility assessment, therefore the convictions must be set aside and a new trial ordered.
Source excerpt
Explore more
