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 Supreme Court held that a qualified technician’s evidence can prove an alcohol standard was certified by an analyst for the breath-test presumption of accuracy.
The court declined to compel the Crown to call a witness, but ordered that Constable Craig Andrews be called as the court’s witness and cross-examined by both sides.
The Court of Appeal clarified its disclosure order in this criminal appeal, adding limiting terms on use and disclosure of sensitive information to protect witnesses.
Stage one sexual-history application granted to proceed to a s. 278.94 hearing. The court found the proposed evidence capable of being admissible for DNA context and other limited purposes.
On the balance of probabilities the applicant met the s.679(3) test: the appeal is not frivolous (novel and potentially dispositive issues), the applicant will surrender (prior compliance, trustworthy sureties, electronic monitoring), and detention is not necessary in the public interest because public safety risks are mitigated by strict conditions and the reviewability interest outweighs the enforceability interest given the strength and novelty of the grounds (including s.14 vagueness and s.38.14 trial fairness issues); accordingly bail pending appeal granted on strict conditions with a mo…
Source excerpt
The court confirmed a prior disclosure order and rejected conditions sought on unredacted disclosure under s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act.
The court held the accused met the stage-one threshold under s. 278.3 for in camera review of police interview documents the complainant had relied on.
Because the applicant failed to particularize any specific redaction or to demonstrate a reasonable possibility that the redacted personal information would assist his exercise of the right to make full answer and defence, and the Crown had provided contact information for many witnesses under an undertaking, there was no established infringement of s.7 and the application was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Where a known third party previously gave sworn testimony taking responsibility for the killing and the transcript is reliably available, that prior testimony provides a sufficient foundation and nexus to permit the accused to call that person as a third-party suspect at re-trial without a pre-trial voir dire; the Crown must identify concrete reasons to believe the witness has changed his evidence to justify a voir dire, which was not done here.
Source excerpt
The court found the complainant refused to testify for s. 715(1) purposes, but excluded her preliminary inquiry evidence in the interests of trial fairness.
Explore more
