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 Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding error in admitting a child’s hearsay statement under the principled exception and ordering a new trial on Count 2.
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.
Leave to intervene was granted because both BWSS and CDAS demonstrated a public interest in the specific issue of abuse of process as it relates to relitigation of findings from prior criminal proceedings, each has a representative base and a unique, non-duplicative perspective that will assist the court, and neither seeks to expand the scope of the appeal; accordingly, intervention was permitted on limited terms (factum page limits and filing deadlines).
Source excerpt
Ontario Court of Appeal decision on cross-count similar fact evidence in a doctor sexual assault case; the majority dismissed the appeal, while one judge would have allowed it in part.
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).
Ontario Court of Appeal upheld convictions for sexual offences and dismissed most sentence concerns, reducing the global sentence by four months on two counts.
The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal from two sexual assault convictions, holding the trial judge failed to address possible inadvertent tainting when assessing credibility.
Court held that disclosure should be ordered in a tiered, protective manner: source documents and the confidential list must be produced with the complainant's name and address/contact information redacted, but dates and particulars of the complaint are to be unredacted; the Wigmore test was not fully satisfied on the evidence and privacy interests are balanced by targeted redactions; order without prejudice to further disclosure applications on additional evidence.
Source excerpt
The impugned decision was an evidentiary ruling on admissibility of similar fact evidence that is not an appealable 'order' under s.13(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Act; such rulings are subsumed in the final judgment and may be addressed on appeal from final judgment, therefore the Court lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be quashed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
