2 total
Appeal allowed and new trial ordered due to highly prejudicial Crown cross-examination of the accused.
The appellant was convicted of attempted murder and possession of a loaded restricted firearm.
At trial, the Crown cross-examined the appellant extensively about his knowledge of four other shootings in his neighbourhood to test his memory of when he heard about the shooting in this case.
The appellant appealed, arguing the cross-examination was unfair and amounted to trial by innuendo.
The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the cross-examination had very low probative value but high prejudicial effect, as it insinuated the appellant was involved in a violent subculture.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered, with the court declining to apply the curative proviso because the unfair cross-examination resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Decertification petition dismissed because it was circulated by a working foreman perceived as an employer representative.
The applicant, a working foreman, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights and circulated a petition signed by employees.
The Board first clarified a previous ruling, confirming that an agreement attempting to amend the bargaining unit in the provincial agreement is null and void under section 146(2) of the Labour Relations Act.
On the merits of the petition, the Board found that although the applicant was an employee in the bargaining unit and not excluded by section 1(3)(b), he was the sole representative of the employer on the job site for most of the time.
Consequently, the Board concluded that the employees would have perceived the applicant as a representative of the employer, rendering the petition involuntary.
The application for termination was dismissed.
A dissenting board member would have accepted the petition and directed a vote.
