B. Rory B. Morahan

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing that the trial judge erred in the charge to the jury regarding self-defence and provocation.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal that the jury charge contained no reversible error.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder after stabbing his wife while severely intoxicated.

He appealed on the basis that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the effect of drunkenness on his ability to form the requisite intent for murder.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and directed a new trial, finding that the trial judge failed to properly link the common sense inference that a person intends the natural consequences of their actions to the evidence of the appellant's intoxication.

The Crown appealed from a decision quashing a conviction under a vagrancy provision that prohibited certain previously convicted sexual offenders from loitering in or near school grounds, playgrounds, public parks, and bathing areas.

The majority held that the word “loiter” bore its ordinary meaning and that the provision infringed liberty under s. 7 of the Charter because it was overbroad in its geographic reach, duration, class of affected persons, and absence of notice or review.

The infringement was not justified under s. 1 because the provision failed minimal impairment, particularly when compared with the more tailored later-enacted prohibition regime in s. 161 of the Criminal Code.

The Court declined to read down or read in limiting features, holding that doing so would amount to judicial rewriting.

The appeal was dismissed, with four judges dissenting.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing that the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing his application to adduce fresh evidence.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons given by the Court of Appeal, finding it unnecessary to deal with the motion for leave to appeal.