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
Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a murder and attempted murder conviction, finding the circumstantial evidence supported aiding and abetting and the wilful blindness instruction was proper.
The appeal is dismissed. Reading the trial judge's Reasons as a whole, she applied a causation analysis focused on whether the accused's driving (not merely impairment) caused the collision and reasonably found on the evidence that the collision was unavoidable, creating a reasonable doubt on causation. Any apparent misstatement did not lead to a legal error that would materially alter the outcome and the factual findings were not plainly wrong.
Source excerpt
Although the trial judge misstated the radar device's target capabilities, that mischaracterization was minor and not material; the conviction was properly based on admissible and reliable evidence (officer's tested radar reading, his fortified visual speed estimate and pacing of vehicles) and the trial judge conducted an adequate W.(D.) credibility analysis without palpable and overriding error; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the conviction stands.
Source excerpt
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Matthew Armstrong’s appeal from robbery convictions, holding the verdict was reasonable and the electronic messages were properly assessed.
The Yukon Court of Appeal dismissed an application for assigned counsel under s. 684(1) of the Criminal Code, finding no arguable ground of appeal.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from a conviction for attempted murder, holding the video and surrounding circumstances supported identity and specific intent.
Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a new trial in a sexual-assault appeal, finding hearsay was admitted without properly hearing the complainant on the voir dire.
The Court found the trial judge’s finding of subjective non-consent to all anal sexual activity was unreasonable because it rested on circumstantial inferences without excluding the reasonable possibility that the complainant consented during a blackout; the differing findings that she consented to non-anal activity but not to all anal activity were illogical on the accepted evidence, and the Court exercised its residual discretion to enter an acquittal because a new trial would be unfair given prior findings favorable to the accused and the risk of impermissible relitigation.
Source excerpt
Trial counsel elected a judge-alone trial without obtaining informed instructions from the appellant; the appellant proved on a balance of probabilities he was never informed of his right to a jury and would likely have chosen one; the deprivation amounted to a miscarriage of justice; conviction set aside and new trial ordered before a judge and jury. The separate ground that the verdict was unreasonable was rejected.
Source excerpt
The appeals were dismissed because the trial judge reasonably found, on the totality of the circumstantial evidence and permissible inferences from the safe-house context and personal items linking appellants to the residence, that the Crown proved constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt; there was no misapprehension of evidence nor unreasonable verdict warranting appellate intervention.
Source excerpt
Explore more
