Anthony Gibbs Bryant

In a joint trial for first-degree murder arising from a home invasion, the co-accused applied to redact portions of two videotaped police statements made by two of the accused.

The applicants argued that the statements contained inadmissible hearsay that was highly prejudicial to the non-makers.

The court applied the principles for editing co-accused statements, balancing the probative value of the narrative context against the prejudicial effect.

The court ordered the redaction of gratuitous police comments, irrelevant bad character evidence, and highly prejudicial post-offence conduct (wiping a coffee cup), but retained the core narrative descriptions of the events, holding that limiting instructions would adequately protect the co-accused.

Accused persons charged following a large police investigation sought disclosure of source materials underlying wiretap authorizations to support anticipated Garofoli and Dawson applications.

The defence argued that all investigative materials, including pre‑Part VI materials referenced or relied upon by the affiant, were presumptively relevant and disclosable under Stinchcombe principles.

The Attorney General of Ontario argued that disclosure should be limited to materials relevant to the accused’s ability to make full answer and defence at trial unless the defence first demonstrated a reasonable possibility that additional materials would assist in challenging the authorization.

The court acknowledged conceptual difficulties with the Crown’s narrower approach but held that existing authorities required an accused to meet a minimal relevance threshold before obtaining additional disclosure beyond what was before the authorizing judge.

Applying principles of judicial comity and following prior decisions adopting that approach, the court dismissed the disclosure applications.

The appellant appealed their conviction and sentence for manslaughter.

The Crown conceded that there was an error in the jury charge regarding party liability for manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal agreed, allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for manslaughter.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred in the jury charge regarding party liability for manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal agreed, allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking and firearms offences after police executed a search warrant at his apartment and found crack cocaine, cash, and a loaded handgun in a safe.

The accused challenged the validity of the search warrant and the lawfulness of the search under the Charter.

The court upheld the search warrant, finding the confidential informant information reliable, and ruled the search of the safe was authorized by the warrant.

During the trial, an unusual procedural issue arose requiring defence counsel to testify regarding a prior inconsistent statement made by a defence witness.

Ultimately, the court rejected the accused's testimony that he did not know about the gun, finding him guilty of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of attempted murder, pointing a firearm, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The offender shot the victim multiple times over a drug debt.

The Crown sought a life sentence, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The court found the offender's lengthy and violent criminal record to be a significant aggravating factor, but concluded this was not the 'worst offence' requiring a life sentence.

The court imposed a global sentence of 16 years, less credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in 11 years and 4 months to be served.

The appellants were committed to stand trial for first degree murder following a preliminary inquiry.

They applied for certiorari to quash the committals, arguing a denial of natural justice because they were not permitted to make submissions on post-offence conduct evidence.

The reviewing judge found a denial of natural justice but dismissed the application, concluding the appellants suffered no prejudice as committal was inevitable.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that a reviewing judge has inherent jurisdiction to refuse certiorari where no prejudice occurs, and found sufficient evidence of planning and deliberation to support the committals.

The appellants, who were committed for trial on charges of first degree murder, appealed the dismissal of their applications to quash the committal order.

They brought a motion seeking an order that they not be required to pay for additional copies of the preliminary inquiry transcripts for the appeal, having already paid for copies used in the Superior Court.

They also sought an order requiring the court reporters to produce the transcripts on diskette for a nominal fee.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that rule 8(7) of the Criminal Appeal Rules is intended to avoid unnecessary duplication of expense, and ordered the court reporters to produce the transcripts on diskette for $1 each.

The Ontario College of Teachers held a discipline hearing regarding a member who was convicted of multiple criminal offences, including indecent assault, buggery, and gross indecency, against six male students.

The incidents occurred between 1964 and 1966.

The member consented to the immediate revocation of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and ordered the immediate revocation of his certificates, noting that his actions betrayed an important position of trust and were reprehensible.

The appellant appealed convictions for first degree murder and related offences arising from the kidnapping, confinement, sexual assault, and deaths of two teenage victims.

He admitted the predicate offences and argued that another participant alone committed the killings, leaving him guilty only of manslaughter.

The court rejected challenges to the admission of similar fact evidence and expert evidence on battered woman syndrome, found no reversible error in the jury charge on burden of proof, party liability, or credibility, and upheld the jury selection procedure under s. 635(1) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal was dismissed in full.