Dana Giovannetti

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing that the trial judge erred by failing to give a Vetrovec warning to the jury.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appropriateness of a Vetrovec warning does not raise a question of law, meaning there was no appeal as of right.

Furthermore, the Court concluded that even if it had jurisdiction, the failure to give the warning did not result in a miscarriage of justice in the circumstances of this case.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant pleaded guilty to several offences including breaking and entering and using a weapon in a sexual assault.

Following the guilty pleas, the Crown applied to have the appellant declared a dangerous offender under Part XXI of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge found the appellant to be a dangerous offender and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the dangerous offender provisions violated sections 7, 9, 11, and 12 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the provisions do not violate the principles of fundamental justice, do not constitute arbitrary detention or cruel and unusual punishment, and that the offender is not entitled to a jury determination of dangerousness.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, expressing substantial agreement with the dissenting reasons of MacDonald J.A. in the court below regarding errors in the charge to the jury.

The respondent's driver's licence was revoked following a Criminal Code conviction, but reinstated pending his appeal.

After his appeal was dismissed, he continued to drive, mistakenly believing he was entitled to do so until he received official notification from the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

He was charged with driving while his licence was cancelled under the provincial Motor Vehicle Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the offence is one of strict liability, the respondent's mistake was one of law, not fact.

As ignorance of the law is not an excuse and there was no evidence of officially induced error, the Court allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial.

The appellants appealed their conviction for indecent assault, arguing the trial judge erred in his charge to the jury regarding the uncontradicted evidence of the complainant and her prior inconsistent statements.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error.

The Court held that the trial judge adequately directed the jury on the danger of convicting on the complainant's evidence alone, and that the circumstances did not require a specific Binet warning regarding prior inconsistent statements since none related to the issue of consent.