A. Stewart

The appellant moved for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment and for leave to amend her certificate respecting evidence.

The delay in filing the appeal was caused by errors made by the appellant's former counsel, not the appellant herself.

The court granted the extension of time on terms, noting that the delay did not deprive the respondent of the ability to respond, but denied leave to amend the certificate respecting evidence.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder.

At trial, the Crown cross-examined the appellant on statements he made to police regarding alleged police harassment, which were not introduced in the Crown's case-in-chief.

The trial judge permitted the Crown to call rebuttal evidence to contradict the appellant's answers under section 11 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge erred, as the issues raised were collateral and did not go to the determinative issue of guilt or innocence.

The Crown was bound by the appellant's answers on cross-examination and could not split its case by calling rebuttal evidence.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellants, Swiss nationals residing in Switzerland, were charged in Manitoba with fraud.

Because Swiss law prevents the extradition of its citizens, Canada requested that Switzerland prosecute them pursuant to an 1880 treaty.

Swiss investigating judges sought to take commission evidence in Canada for the pre-trial stage of the Swiss proceedings.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the order granting the commission, finding that section 43 of the Canada Evidence Act should be interpreted liberally to fulfill Canada's international treaty obligations, even if the evidence was for pre-trial use.