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 dismissed the Crown’s appeal in a second-degree murder case, holding the trial judge relied on an out-of-court statement as hearsay and that no curative proviso applied.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a conviction for the May 2023 sexual assault, finding no reversible misapprehension of evidence or insufficiency of reasons.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from sexual offence convictions, holding the trial judge’s reasons were sufficient and the mother’s evidence was largely hearsay.
The trial judge's reasons were legally and factually deficient—long on recitation but conclusory on credibility, containing errors, conflations and unaddressed evidentiary issues (including the role of cocaine-related evidence)—such that meaningful appellate review was impossible; accordingly the appeal is allowed and a new trial ordered.
Source excerpt
The trial judge did not commit legal error or materially misapprehend the evidence: the identification was properly treated as recognition evidence supported by prior acquaintance and corroborative facts (including aspects admitted by the appellant), the photo‑pack imperfections did not negate its probative value, the judge lawfully assessed credibility without reversing the onus, and the reasons were sufficient for appellate review; therefore the conviction was sustainable and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a sexual assault appeal, holding the trial judge properly applied W.(D.), could assess consent by phase, and gave adequate reasons.
Appeal dismissed because the trial judge reasonably found the respondent had lawful justification as a process server to approach and knock at the dwelling, the signage and history did not establish revocation of the implied licence, the trial reasons were sufficient for appellate review, and no misapprehension of evidence or legal error that caused a miscarriage of justice was demonstrated.
Source excerpt
Ontario Court of Appeal upheld convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference, finding the trial judge’s credibility reasons sufficient. The sexual assault conviction was stayed under Kienapple.
Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a study permit refusal based on misrepresentation, finding the procedural fairness process and reasons were sufficient.
The Court of Appeal allowed Mr. Batson’s appeal from a sexual assault conviction, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial because the reasons were insufficient and contained material errors.
Explore more
