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 held it was an error to rely on the appellant’s refusal to be interviewed by experts as adverse evidence, but dismissed the appeal because the error was immaterial.
The trial Crown impermissibly elicited the appellant's pre-trial silence and the trial judge impermissibly used that silence to draw an adverse inference about credibility and fabrication; those errors breached the appellant's right to silence and were material to the verdicts, requiring that the convictions be set aside and a new trial ordered.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held the motion judge properly found contempt: the non-dissipation order encompassed the undisclosed life insurance policies and historical interests; circumstantial evidence and permissible adverse inferences supported the conclusion that the appellant knew the whereabouts of the Ferrari; the screenshot met necessity and reliability requirements and was corroborated; the use of the appellant's affidavits did not breach the privilege against self-incrimination. The factual findings were not plainly wrong and the appeal was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of an IAD decision on sponsorship and misrepresentation, holding the res judicata issue and evidence assessment were reasonable.
The Crown did not prove either offence beyond a reasonable doubt: DNA on items and circumstantial links were insufficient to establish that Burton was the person who broke into and intentionally burned the cabin, and reasonable alternative hypotheses (including accidental fire and nonexclusive access) remained; no adverse inference from silence was drawn.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision, holding that an adverse inference from silence on new evidence was reasonable and no procedural unfairness occurred.
The Federal Court quashed a security certificate against Mahmoud Es-Sayyid Jaballah, finding the Ministers had not shown reasonable grounds for membership, terrorism, or danger to Canada.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed Walsh’s fresh evidence application and appeal, finding his conflict-of-interest claim and account of a third party’s confession lacked credibility.
The convictions were reasonable on the circumstantial evidence showing ownership, control and ongoing use of the property for a large grow‑op; the trial judge did not impermissibly rely on silence but only noted its effect under R. v. Noble; and the nine month custodial sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the operation's scale, value and need for denunciation and deterrence.
Source excerpt
Although the summary conviction appeal court misapprehended the appellant's evidence, the trial judge's reasons were sufficient and disclosed no error; the reference to the appellant's silence was properly treated as use of prior inconsistent statements and credibility assessments are for the trial judge, therefore the appeal must be dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
