Canada Case Law

R. v. Granados-Arana

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Applying the functional approach, the trial judge did not err: Ms. Forsyth was a mixed witness so a Vetrovec caution was permissible; the charge, read as a whole, reasonably instructed the jury that confirmatory evidence was required only for inculpatory uses of those witnesses and preserved the Crown’s burden of proof; defence counsel's lack of objection at pre-charge conference was a relevant factor; and the s.745.51 order imposing consecutive parole ineligibility must be quashed under Bissonnette, so parole ineligibility runs concurrently.

Source excerpt

• Vetrovec warning
• Unsavoury/mixed witnesses
• Confirmatory evidence
• Jury instructions
• Consecutive parole ineligibility
• S.745.51 criminal code

Read case analysis

R. v. Varghese

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge committed reversible errors of law by relying on stereotypical 'common sense' about victim behaviour and by failing to consider and weigh confirmatory corroborative evidence and by rejecting third‑party witness evidence for speculative reasons; those errors materially affected the credibility assessment and the acquittal, so the Court allowed the Crown's appeal, set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial on all charges.

Source excerpt

• Sexual assault
• Credibility assessment
• Confirmatory evidence
• Crown appeal of acquittal under s.676(1)(a)
• Publication restrictions

Read case analysis

R. v. L.G.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court dismissed the appeal: the trial judge did not reverse the burden of proof in rejecting the defence witnesses' evidence because her finding of collusion/tainting was grounded in the evidence (not an unspoken standard), and her reliance on independent confirmatory facts was a permissible common‑sense evaluation more consistent with the complainant's account than the appellant's; credibility findings merited deference and no palpable and overriding error was shown.

Source excerpt

• Sexual assault
• Gross indecency
• Credibility assessment
• Burden of proof
• Confirmatory evidence
• Appeal from conviction

Read case analysis

R. v. G.H.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge made reasonable credibility and reliability findings; G.G.'s evidence was properly accepted and was confirmatory of the complainant's account of repeated assaults on the couch, S.H.'s evidence was reasonably discounted due to lack of corroboration and failure to preserve alleged messages, conviction for the pattern of ongoing sexual assaults was properly supported and the five‑year sentence was within the applicable range; the lifetime SOIRA order was legally untenable and was varied to 20 years.

Source excerpt

• Sexual assault
• Confirmatory evidence
• Credibility assessment
• Sentence review
• Sex offender information registration act (soira)

Read case analysis

R. v. Handlen

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed in a first degree murder conviction. The court upheld admission of pre-hypnosis eyewitness statements and a Mr. Big confession and reenactment.

• Principled exception to hearsay
• Mr. big confession admissibility
• Necessity and threshold reliability
• Reconsideration of rulings
• Abuse of process
• Confirmatory evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Wheatle

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Vetrovec and eyewitness identification instructions, considered as a whole and against counsel's addresses and the evidence, were adequate and functional; the trial judge properly explained confirmatory evidence and left factual assessments of independence and truthfulness to the jury, so there was no miscarriage of justice and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Vetrovec warning
• Eyewitness identification
• Confirmatory evidence
• Jury instructions
• Identification procedures
• Confessions/statements

Read case analysis

R. v. J.B.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appellate court dismissed the conviction appeal because the trial judge did not commit legal error: noting lack of embellishment was a permissible observation of absence of a detractor, prior consistent statements were not used impermissibly or prejudicially, neutral evidence properly had confirmatory weight for credibility and to rebut defence hypotheses, and the s.161(1)(a) prohibition was a reasonable exercise of sentencing discretion; however the s.161(1)(c) order was removed because it could not apply to offences committed before the legislative amendment.

Source excerpt

• Sexual assault
• Credibility assessment
• Prior consistent statements
• Confirmatory evidence
• Publication restrictions
• Section 161 prohibitions

Read case analysis

R. v. Vallee

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld Cory Vallee’s convictions, finding no reversible error in the refusal of a mistrial, the Vetrovec analysis, or the identity findings.

• Mistrial
• Late disclosure
• Vetrovec caution
• Accomplice evidence
• Identity
• Conspiracy

Read case analysis

R. v. Hall

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed a conviction appeal, holding the trial judge did not materially misapprehend evidence and did not commit a Beaudry error.

• Identity
• Vetrovec witness
• Misapprehension of evidence
• Beaudry error
• Credibility
• Confirmatory evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Tran

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court considered whether Troy Minh Tri Tran was part of a conspiracy to murder Bacon associates, and found the Crown had not proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Conspiracy to murder
• Vetrovec witnesses / accomplice evidence
• Co-conspirator hearsay exception (carter)
• Credibility and reliability
• Confirmatory evidence
• Publication ban (s.486.5 criminal code)

Read case analysis