Anthony B. Gerein

In this criminal appeal, the appellate court had set aside a sexual assault conviction after finding reviewable errors in the trial judge’s reasoning and entering an acquittal.

The Crown challenged the conclusion that the verdict was unreasonable and sought restoration of a conviction-related remedy short of acquittal.

A majority held that the acquittal should not stand and that the appropriate disposition was a new trial.

The appeal was allowed, with one judge dissenting in favour of dismissing the appeal.

The accused was convicted of possession of child pornography after police searched his computer pursuant to a warrant.

The warrant was obtained based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) sworn by a police officer after a computer technician reported seeing suspicious bookmarks and a webcam pointed at a child's play area.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the search violated s. 8 of the Charter because the ITO, which contained misleading and incomplete information, failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused possessed child pornography.

The Court distinguished between the offences of accessing and possessing child pornography, holding that possession requires control over the underlying data files, not merely viewing images online.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and an acquittal was entered.

The accused shot and killed his common-law spouse and was charged with second degree murder.

The trial judge acquitted him of murder but convicted him of manslaughter, finding a reasonable doubt as to intent due to a combination of intoxication and accident.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal, finding the trial judge's reasons inadequate.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal, holding that while the duty to give reasons applies to acquittals, the reasons were sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review given the Crown's limited right of appeal on questions of law alone.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after stabbing his common-law wife.

At trial, he raised the defence of extreme intoxication, claiming he had no memory of the events due to alcohol consumption.

The trial judge instructed the jury using a one-step charge focusing on actual intent rather than capacity to form intent.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's instructions on the defence of intoxication were adequate and that a one-step charge focusing only on actual intent should be used in all future charges on intoxication.

The accused was convicted of attempting to obstruct justice after a fire in a residential building he managed.

The trial judge found he attempted to falsify smoke alarm inspection records and rejected his testimony.

The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction, reasoning his conduct could be explained by a desire to have perfect records rather than an intent to obstruct.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that an appellate court cannot acquit based on speculation about an alternative explanation that is flatly contradicted by the accused's own testimony.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder, arguing that the trial judge's lengthy jury charge was misleading and that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the murder occurred during a sexual assault.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while the 2.5-day charge was not perfect and the practice of reading extended passages from notes is discouraged, it did not mislead the jury or impact trial fairness.

The Court also found sufficient circumstantial evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude the murder occurred during a sexual assault.