Alexander Budlovsky

The accused was convicted of three sexual offences against his stepdaughter.

The trial judge found the complainant credible and largely rejected the accused's evidence, but did not explicitly link each incident to a specific count or detail why the accused's denial failed to raise a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal set aside the convictions, finding the reasons insufficient.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, holding that a trial judge's reasons must be read in context and are sufficient if they show why the judge reached the decision, without needing to detail every step of the reasoning process.

The appellant was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death after his vehicle crossed the centre line into oncoming traffic, killing three people.

The trial judge acquitted the appellant, finding that his momentary lapse of attention did not constitute a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittals and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittals, holding that a momentary lapse of attention, without more, cannot establish the actus reus and mens rea of the offence of dangerous driving.

The Crown sought an ex parte order under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code to compel a Named Person to attend a judicial investigative hearing and answer questions regarding the Air India bombings.

The Named Person challenged the constitutionality of s. 83.28, arguing it violated the right against self-incrimination under s. 7 of the Charter and compromised judicial independence.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the provision, finding it procedural in nature, thus applicable retrospectively.

The Court held that s. 83.28 includes adequate safeguards, such as derivative use immunity, which must be extended to extradition and deportation hearings to comply with s. 7.

The Court also found that the provision does not compromise judicial independence, as judges retain their role in protecting the witness's constitutional rights.

The appellant appealed his convictions for second degree murder, aggravated assault, and break, enter and robbery.

The appeal concerned the adequacy of the trial judge's charge to the jury on s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code and whether the Crown's closing address amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the charge was adequate as a whole and the Crown's remarks did not cause a miscarriage of justice.

The Crown appealed as of right from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which had set aside the accused's convictions for second degree murder, aggravated assault, and break, enter and robbery on the basis that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing that the trial judge erred in the jury charge regarding the effect of intoxication on the presumption of intent.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal as of right, endorsing the majority reasons of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The Court held that the trial judge adequately linked the evidence of intoxication to the possible application of the presumption of intent.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching against his step-granddaughter and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal substituted a nine-month conditional sentence.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, finding that a nine-month conditional sentence was unfit given the gravity of the offences and the accused's high moral blameworthiness.

The original nine-month sentence of incarceration was restored but stayed since the accused had already served the conditional sentence in its entirety.