David M. Tanovich

The appellant was convicted of robbery, assault causing bodily harm, kidnapping, and possession of a dangerous weapon after the victim was severely beaten.

At trial, the defence sought to cross-examine Crown witnesses on the theory that the beating was over a drug debt, based on police reports.

The trial judge ruled that defence counsel could only pursue this cross-examination if she provided substantive evidence of the drug debt theory, forcing the defence to call police officers as witnesses and lose the right to address the jury last.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge erred in law by requiring an evidentiary foundation rather than a good faith basis for the cross-examination.

The Court concluded the error fatally impacted the fairness of the trial and could not be saved by the curative proviso, allowing the appeal and ordering a new trial.

The appellant was tried by a jury for attempted murder.

The jury intended to return a guilty verdict, but due to the foreman's stuttering or coughing, the trial judge and others heard 'not guilty'.

The verdict was recorded as not guilty, and the jury and accused were discharged.

Shortly after, a court officer discovered the error.

The trial judge reconvened the jury over the next few days and eventually changed the recorded verdict to guilty.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while a trial judge has a narrow post-discharge jurisdiction to correct a verdict if it does not require the jury to reconsider its decision, this jurisdiction is lost if there is a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Given the jury's extensive dispersal and potential exposure to media, a reasonable apprehension of bias existed.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of sexual offences involving children.

Prior to jury selection, he applied to challenge potential jurors for cause, arguing that the nature of the charges gave rise to a realistic possibility of juror partiality.

The trial judge rejected the application and the accused was convicted.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the accused failed to establish a widespread bias in the community arising from the nature of the charges that would be incapable of being set aside by jurors despite trial safeguards.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting his young niece.

The complainant disclosed the assaults several years later, and her testimony was uncorroborated.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, and the majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, with one judge dissenting on the basis that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge was entitled to believe the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant and that the verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence.