Brian A. Beresh

The accused was convicted of second degree murder after the victim was found beaten to death.

At trial, the judge relied on an out-of-court statement made by the victim during a phone call to establish the timeline of events and the accused's exclusive opportunity to commit the murder.

The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge impermissibly relied on the hearsay statement for the truth of its contents.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, confirming that the trial judge's reasons unambiguously relied on the out-of-court statement for its truth without a proper hearsay exception analysis, necessitating a new trial.

In a Crown sentence appeal arising from historical child sexual offences, the Court clarified that appellate intervention requires a legal error affecting sentence or demonstrable unfitness, and that sufficiency of reasons must be assessed functionally and contextually.

The Court held the sentencing judge’s factual findings and reasons were sufficient in light of the jury verdict, record, and submissions.

It further held that contemporary sentencing principles, including Friesen, apply to historical offences, subject to the maximum penalty in force when the offences were committed.

The appellate reduction was set aside, the original six-year concurrent sentence restored, and reincarceration ordered in the interests of denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant was convicted by jury of second degree murder, indecently interfering with human remains, and arson.

On appeal, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the convictions.

At trial, the Crown sought to lead rebuttal expert evidence but failed to disclose the expert report prior to the completion of the defence expert's testimony, and also failed to cross-examine the defence expert on the contents of that report.

The trial judge allowed the Crown's expert to testify but restricted the scope of the evidence as a remedial measure.

The Supreme Court held that the Crown's late disclosure and failure to cross-examine interfered with the accused's ability to know the case to meet and make full answer and defence.

The trial judge's remedial ruling was not capable of undoing the prejudice caused, and precluding the Crown's expert from testifying entirely was the only way to preserve the accused's right to a fair trial.

A new trial was ordered on all counts.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting his niece.

During deliberations, the jury asked for an explanation of the guideline on evidence and reasonable doubt.

The trial judge's recharge suggested the jury had to choose between the credibility of the complainant and the accused.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that this either/or approach was incorrect as it excluded the third alternative: that the jury might not believe the accused but still have a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada from a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which had set aside his acquittal and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in excluding the appellant's conversation with a police constable.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the appellant's right to silence under section 7 of the Charter was not violated and that the excluded evidence might have reasonably affected the verdict.

The appellant was charged with first degree murder but convicted of manslaughter at trial on the basis of provocation.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the subjective test for provocation was not met.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal as of right, adopting the dissenting reasons of Foisy J.A. in the Court of Appeal, and restored the trial judge's verdict.

The appellant appealed a decision setting aside a stay of proceedings that had been granted on the basis that his Charter right to a fair trial was infringed due to his inability to communicate with the court and understand the charge.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial judge was not the appropriate forum for the application.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal which quashed the convictions of the respondents on a charge of conspiracy to traffic in narcotics.

The issue concerned the validity of an order authorizing the interception of private communications.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing substantially with the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal.