Canada Case Law

Commissioner v Rogers - Order authorizing a motion under Rule 73

Court

Competition Tribunal

The Tribunal granted the Rule 73 authorization because it was satisfied that reading the specified examination transcripts and exhibits into evidence would advance the efficient and expedient presentation of the applicant's case, the respondent consented and would suffer no prejudice, and the order preserved the respondent's right to cross-examine and the applicant's right to re-examine by leading questions; no order as to costs was made.

Source excerpt

• Deceptive marketing
• Examination transcripts
• Rule 73 authorization
• Cross-examination rights
• Procedural efficiency

Read case analysis

Morabito v. British Columbia (Securities Commission)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, holding that a blended hearing on abuse of process and liability was procedurally unfair and required a new hearing before a different panel.

• Insider trading
• Abuse of process
• Stay of proceedings
• Disclosure obligations
• Cross-examination rights
• Investigative powers

Read case analysis

Durmuller v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

An appeal from a firearms licence reference was allowed after the court found the hearing unfair: the judge’s interventions and refusal of expected cross-examination created bias concerns.

• Procedural fairness
• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Reference hearing scope
• Cross-examination rights
• Remedies for unfair hearing
• Procedural-fairness

Read case analysis

R. v. Thiara

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Appeal dismissed in a traffic-ticket case involving electronic-device use while driving. The court upheld the conviction and rejected complaints about cross-examination and disclosure.

• Use of electronic device while driving
• Cross-examination rights
• Disclosure of police notes
• Admissibility of complaint statements
• Appeal on the record
• Electronic-device-while-driving

Read case analysis

R. v. Crossley

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court allowed a Crown application under s. 715(1) of the Criminal Code to admit Robert Bailey’s recorded prior testimony after finding him unavailable.

• Recorded testimony
• Section 715(1) criminal code
• Unavailable witness
• Hearsay principled approach
• Cross-examination rights
• Criminal-evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Vorobiov

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge’s interventions in cross-examination, the Browne v. Dunn instruction, and the post-offence conduct charge did not undermine the fairness of the trial or cause a miscarriage of justice; the defence obtained the evidentiary concessions it required, the Browne v. Dunn direction was a reasonable remedy for an unchallenged material contradiction, and the post-offence conduct was properly left to the jury to weigh, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the conviction is upheld.

Source excerpt

• Cross-examination rights
• Browne v. dunn rule
• Vetrovec warning
• Post-offence conduct
• Curative proviso s.686(1)(b)(iii)
• Jury charge errors

Read case analysis

United Air Lines Inc. v. Cooperstock

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed a motion to let an expert testify by videoconference from the United Kingdom, finding fairness, cross-examination, and procedural concerns outweighed convenience.

• Videoconference testimony
• Expert witness availability
• Cross-examination rights
• Oath and jurisdiction
• Procedural prejudice
• Court discretion on hearings

Read case analysis

First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada)

Court

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

The Panel held that its July 3, 2013 ruling is sufficiently flexible to permit the narrow March 13, 2014 disclosure request under the duty of ongoing disclosure, that counsel's waiver regarding Ms. D'Amico obviates an adjournment for her testimony, and that the Respondent must notify the Panel promptly if extra time is needed for future witnesses while the Panel will not extend current dates unless absolutely necessary.

Source excerpt

• Disclosure obligations
• Duty of ongoing disclosure
• Adjournment
• Cross-examination rights
• Race
• National or ethnic origin

Read case analysis

R. v. Saleh

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The admission of Yegin’s preliminary inquiry testimony, combined with the trial judge’s failure to adequately assess the manifest unreliability of that witness, the inability of the accused to confront him with later impeachment material and the exclusion of Esrabian’s competing account, together with the judge’s failure to relate the evidence to the decisive issues in the charge and the flawed answer to the jury’s question treating presence as proof, cumulatively rendered the trial unfair and the conviction unsafe; appeal allowed and new trial ordered.

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Admissibility of prior testimony
• Section 715 criminal code
• Vetrovec instruction
• Jury charge adequacy
• Judge-alone trial (s.473)

Read case analysis

Tong v. Lanser

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld exclusion of a physician’s letters and dismissed challenges to jury awards for loss of working capacity and future care.

• Damages
• Loss of earning capacity
• Future care costs
• Hearsay and admissibility
• Cross-examination rights
• Appellate standard of review

Read case analysis