Akram Attia

The appellant challenged an order for a new trial after the court below set aside an acquittal on a sexual assault charge.

The dispositive issue was whether the trial judge’s failure to instruct the jury on taking reasonable steps to ascertain consent could reasonably have had a material bearing on the acquittal.

The Court agreed with the majority below that the instructional error met that threshold.

The appeal was dismissed and the new trial order stood.

The appellant appealed his convictions for breaking and entering, assault causing bodily harm, and possession of a weapon, challenging the adequacy of the identification evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, with the majority finding that the trial judge's decision was reasonable, supported by the evidence, and contained no error in applying the law to the facts.

Fish J. dissented, arguing that the trial judge's inferences regarding identification did not flow logically from the evidence.

The appellant was charged with hybrid offences more than six months after the alleged conduct.

The Crown elected to proceed summarily, but upon discovering the limitation period had expired, sought to re-elect to proceed by indictment.

The trial judge declared the information a nullity.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused's appeal, holding that while the six-month limitation period applies when the Crown elects to proceed summarily, the failure of the accused to consent to out-of-time summary proceedings renders the Crown's initial election a nullity.

The original information remains valid, allowing the Crown to proceed by indictment absent an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marihuana, arguing that the search warrant was invalid because the information provided by a first-time informant lacked corroboration of criminal particulars.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that corroboration of a criminal particular is not strictly required to establish the reliability of an informant's information for the issuance of a search warrant.