David A. Fairgrieve

The respondent was charged with unlawful confinement, using a firearm while committing an indictable offence, possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, and unlawfully pointing a firearm.

The trial judge acquitted the respondent of unlawful confinement but convicted him of the firearm offence, applying the Kienapple principle to stay the remaining charges.

The Court of Appeal quashed the firearm conviction because there was no conviction for the underlying indictable offence, but made no order regarding the stayed charges.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal against the acquittal, confirming that a conviction for the underlying offence is a prerequisite for a conviction under s. 83(1).

However, the Court remitted the matter to the trial judge to determine whether to register convictions on the stayed charges.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault causing bodily harm.

He admitted to forcing the complainant to have sexual intercourse but claimed his drunkenness caused the attack.

The trial judge instructed the jury that drunkenness is no defence to the charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that sexual assault causing bodily harm is an offence of general intent.

The Court affirmed the rule in Leary, holding that evidence of self-induced intoxication cannot be considered by the trier of fact to negate the minimal intent required for general intent offences, and that this rule does not violate sections 7 or 11(d) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with impaired driving.

After being informed of his right to counsel, he called his wife to contact a lawyer.

Immediately after the call, police demanded a breath sample, which he provided.

The trial judge convicted the accused, finding no Charter violation.

The District Court allowed the appeal, finding a violation.

The Court of Appeal restored the conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the accused's right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter was violated by the police's failure to afford him a reasonable opportunity to contact a lawyer, the breathalyzer evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The police's hastiness was provoked by the accused's actively obstructive and stalling behaviour, meaning the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which quashed the respondent's conviction for attempting to break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The trial judge had been unable to find what specific indictable offence the respondent intended to commit.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by the Court of Appeal, affirming that proof of intent to commit a specific indictable offence is necessary for a conviction under section 306(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.