Canada Case Law

R. v. Koval

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Cumulative procedural errors — summary denial of the March 6 request without reasons, proceeding ex parte on March 7 without adequate inquiry or justification, and continuing the trial after March 8 rather than declaring a mistrial — deprived the accused of a fair trial; the unfairness is prejudicial and not susceptible to cure under s.686(1)(b); convictions are set aside and a new trial ordered.

Source excerpt

• Trial fairness
• Ex parte proceedings
• Absence of accused
• Adjournment
• Waiver of right to full answer and defence
• Curative proviso

Read case analysis

R. v. G.G.

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

La Cour suprême rejette l’appel et confirme une condamnation pour agression sexuelle, concluant que le ministère public n’avait pas à prouver l’heure exacte alléguée.

• Sexual assault
• Alibi
• Proof of timing
• Trial fairness
• Appellate substitution of conviction
• Sexual-assault

Read case analysis

Canadian National Railway Company v. Kitchener (City)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed CN’s appeal, holding that its coal tar contamination claim was an abuse of process because the same continuing-migration claim had already been dismissed for delay.

• Continuing tort
• Abuse of process
• Summary judgment
• Limitations
• Trial fairness
• Relitigation

Read case analysis

R. v. Davis

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

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.

• Trial fairness
• Self-represented accused assistance
• Amicus curiae
• Voluntariness voir dire
• Cross-examination
• New trial

Read case analysis

R. v. Cyrus

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Ont. C.A. rejected a criminal appeal challenging judicial interventions and the use of similar fact evidence in a sexual assault trial.

• Sexual assault
• Uttered threat
• Consent
• Similar fact evidence
• Judicial intervention
• Trial fairness

Read case analysis

R. v. Chow

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The British Columbia Supreme Court allowed an appeal from a sexual assault conviction, finding the trial judge’s repeated interventions created an appearance of unfairness.

• Sexual assault
• Consent
• Intoxication
• Judicial intervention
• Appearance of unfairness
• Trial fairness

Read case analysis

R. v. I.M.B.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding unfairness from improperly ending a witness’s cross-examination and from overreliance on demeanour evidence.

• Right to cross-examination
• Trial fairness
• Discontinuance of cross-examination
• Witness demeanour
• Corroboration
• Miscarriage of justice

Read case analysis

Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The adjournment is granted because trial fairness requires that Annapolis be afforded a fair opportunity to review and rebut evidence HRM intends to lead regarding the provincial panel's designation; consequently HRM must produce documents relating to its recommendation to the province (including communications with the provincial panel and with provincial personnel) and the trial is suspended pending production and a trial management conference to set timing for resumption and any rebuttal evidence.

Source excerpt

• Adjournment under rule 4.20
• Document production
• Solicitor-client privilege
• Constructive taking
• Misfeasance in public office
• Special planning area designation

Read case analysis

R. v. Cavanaugh

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals from criminal contempt convictions for breaching a Trans Mountain injunction, rejecting Indigenous-law, bias, disclosure, and actus reus arguments.

• Mens rea
• Colour of right
• Subpoenas
• Collateral attack on court orders
• Jurisdiction
• Injunction enforcement

Read case analysis

R. v. Brown

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal was allowed because the Crown’s inconsistent positions regarding the appellant’s residence created a trial fairness defect; accordingly the Charter application dismissal and the convictions were set aside and a new trial on all issues was ordered.

Source excerpt

• Possession for the purpose of trafficking
• Possession of proceeds of trafficking
• Firearm offences
• Charter s.8 reasonable expectation of privacy
• Standing to bring charter application
• Trial fairness

Read case analysis