Craig M. Garson

The appellants, two managerial staff members at a coal mine where an explosion killed 26 miners, were charged with manslaughter.

During the trial, the trial judge made a private phone call to a senior member of the Attorney General's staff, requesting the removal of the lead Crown counsel and threatening to take steps to secure that end.

The trial judge subsequently denied the Crown's motion for recusal and later ordered a stay of proceedings due to the Crown's failure to disclose relevant evidence.

The Court of Appeal set aside the stay and ordered a new trial, finding a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias, which retroactively rendered his order staying the proceedings void.

A new trial was ordered, with costs awarded to the appellants due to the systemic problems and the trial judge's conduct.

The appellant was convicted of rape and assault against his niece, who had been in his care as a child.

At trial, evidence from the complainant's brothers regarding the appellant's violent control and abuse of other children in the household was admitted without specific jury instructions on its limited permissible use.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the evidence was admissible to rebut the defence of innocent association and explain the delay in reporting, the trial judge's failure to instruct the jury against using it as propensity evidence was a reversible error.

The Court declined to apply the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, concluding that the verdict would not necessarily have been the same had the jury been properly instructed, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder based in part on the testimony of an accomplice.

On appeal, the appellant argued that gaps in the trial transcript, including a portion of the judge's charge to the jury, constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant also argued that the trial judge failed to give a clear and sharp warning regarding the dangers of accepting the uncorroborated testimony of the accomplice.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the missing transcript portions did not create a serious possibility of error and that the trial judge's warning regarding the accomplice's testimony was sufficient under the circumstances.