Canada Case Law

R. v. Chief Dsta’hyl

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The proposed excusatory defence based on acting pursuant to Wet'suwet'en law fails because the accused's disobedience of the injunction was not a last-resort choice and, in substance, constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a valid court order for which lawful alternatives existed; accordingly the trial judge did not err in refusing to recognize the defence.

Source excerpt

• Contempt of court
• Collateral attack doctrine
• Necessity defence
• Recognition of indigenous legal orders
• Oral history evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Akinbobola

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Applicant failed to demonstrate that the chambers judge erred in law, principle, or by misconceiving the facts; the trial judge's finding that the appellant held the phone fell within the statutory definition of 'use', there was no evidence of imminent peril to sustain a necessity defence on the record, and the proposed grounds lacked sufficient merit or public importance to justify leave; therefore the application to vary the chambers order is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Use of electronic device while driving
• Definition of 'use' under motor vehicle act
• Necessity defence
• Leave to appeal / permission to appeal
• Standard of review for variation of chambers orders

Read case analysis

Dempsey v. Pagefreezer Software Inc.

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The motion was dismissed because the appellant failed to meet the Fulton test — he did not demonstrate an arguable issue on appeal or irreparable harm, and he comes to the Court without clean hands after repeated non‑compliance with discovery orders and prior contempt findings; additionally the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested first‑instance injunction, therefore the stay and injunctive relief were refused and costs awarded to respondents.

Source excerpt

• Stay of execution
• Injunctive relief
• Discovery in aid of execution
• Clean hands doctrine
• Necessity defence

Read case analysis

R. v. Wood

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found Ms. Wood guilty on all counts after concluding she intentionally drove forward while Mr. Reed stood in front of her truck, causing his leg injuries.

• Dangerous driving causing bodily harm
• Assault with a weapon
• Assault causing bodily harm
• Credibility assessment
• Necessity defence
• Admission of preliminary inquiry evidence

Read case analysis

Miller v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision, finding the applicants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate U.S. state protection.

• State protection
• Article 1f(b) exclusion (serious non-political crime)
• Admission of fresh evidence
• Well-founded fear
• Necessity defence
• Standard of review (reasonableness)

Read case analysis

Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Davidson

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found Angela Davidson guilty of seven counts of criminal contempt for breaching an injunction and release orders linked to Fairy Creek protests.

• Contempt of court
• Injunction enforcement
• Mens rea and actus reus
• Publicity element
• Necessity defence
• Mistake of fact

Read case analysis

R. v. Onyeachonam

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The videotaped evidence was overwhelming and established callous, extreme violence such that there was no air of reality to the necessity defence; any error regarding admission or use of the appellant's utterances was immaterial to the conviction. The seven‑year sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the gravity of the offences and the injuries inflicted. The weapons prohibition orders contained technical statutory errors which this Court corrected by substituting a 10‑year prohibition under s.109(2)(a) and a lifetime prohibition under s.109(2)(b).

Source excerpt

• Aggravated assault
• Necessity defence
• Voluntariness of statements
• Weapons prohibition orders
• Appeal on conviction and sentence

Read case analysis

R. v. Chartrand

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Fresh evidence was inadmissible under Palmer; the trial judge properly exercised discretion in denying Garofoli leave and in finding ITOs/warrants facially sufficient under the totality of the circumstances; the constitutional challenge to s.5(2) CDSA and ACMPR was properly summarily dismissed as lacking necessary evidentiary foundation and manifestly frivolous; no s.8 breach or judicial bias was demonstrated; s.11(b) was not adjudicated on appeal because it was not raised below and the record did not warrant first‑instance appellate Jordan analysis; the 18‑month CSO and forfeiture were withi…

Source excerpt

• Search warrants and ito sufficiency
• Section 5(2) controlled drugs and substances act constitutionality
• Access to cannabis for medical purposes regulations
• Fresh evidence (palmer)
• Garofoli leave to cross-examine affiant
• S.8 charter search and seizure

Read case analysis

R. v. Gray

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from a careless driving conviction, finding no error in the burden of proof or the due diligence analysis.

• Careless driving (s.144(1)(b) mva)
• Strict liability and due diligence defence
• Necessity defence
• Burden of proof
• Credibility and fact finding
• Careless-driving

Read case analysis

R. v. Guillemette

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

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

• Necessity defence
• Right to silence
• Adverse inference from silence
• Credibility assessment
• New trial

Read case analysis