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 Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a conviction appeal in a sexual interference case, finding the jury was properly instructed on reasonable doubt and no further limiting instruction was required.
Although re-election to a judge-alone trial reduces some risks of moral and reasoning prejudice, the proposed similar fact evidence offers only modest probative value and would still create significant prejudice: documentary material would distract the trial, risk a trial-within-a-trial, and likely compel the accused to testify; therefore the evidence remains inadmissible and the Crown's reconsideration application is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Tax Court struck impugned reply paragraphs about prior audits, charges and a tax evasion plea, finding them irrelevant and prejudicial under Rule 53(1)(a).
Crown’s application to admit similar fact email evidence was dismissed because its modest probative value was outweighed by prejudice and propensity risk.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Sinbad Marshall’s appeal from a second-degree murder conviction and 15 years, 9 months parole ineligibility.
The Court held the Crown's closing was responsive to the defence and did not render the trial unfair given the absence of objection and the trial judge's propensity instruction; the evidence, including the complainant's testimony and cross-examination, permitted an inference of penetration sufficient to support the incest conviction; and the 11-year global sentence was fit in light of the victim's age, multiple and invasive incidents, breach of trust, and the appellant's prior sexual conviction, so both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.
Source excerpt
On the facts, the trial judge did not usurp the jury's fact‑finding because certificates of analysis were uncontested and the jury was repeatedly told they were sole judges of fact; the order of charges and the wording of the charge did not improperly encourage propensity reasoning given the contextual links between counts, proper instructions on burden and included offences, and absence of objection; the jury was properly instructed about the limited use of text messages as contemporaneous circumstantial evidence and not for propensity; accordingly the convictions are upheld and the appeal i…
Source excerpt
The trial judge did not commit reversible error: the recordings and communications were properly admitted and relevant to the complainant's credibility and the nature of the relationship rather than to prove propensity; the judge exercised appropriate caution and her credibility determinations were not palpably wrong. Because the evidentiary record is inadequate to substitute a 20-year SOIRA term on appeal, the appropriate remedy is to remit the matter for proceedings under s.490.05(1)/(4); accordingly the convictions are upheld and the sentence appeal is dismissed without prejudice to a Supe…
Source excerpt
The trial judge lawfully assessed credibility without making corroboration a legal prerequisite, permissibly used evidence of the appellant's lies as one factor (not for propensity), and any misapprehension about motive was immaterial to the verdicts; therefore the conviction appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge legitimately used the admitted audio recording for credibility impeachment rather than impermissible propensity reasoning, properly considered and rejected both intentional and unconscious collusion based on the evidence, and made credibility findings to which the appellate court must defer.
Source excerpt
Explore more
