David Watt

The appellant appealed his conviction for uttering a threat of death by telephone.

He had telephoned police headquarters and threatened a police officer.

The issue was whether these telephone calls constituted 'private communications' under s. 178.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a message to a police station to convey a threat to a police officer cannot reasonably be considered a private communication.

The appellant planned to kill his wife by crashing their car and setting it on fire, but in carrying out the plan, he accidentally killed his two children instead.

He was convicted of first-degree murder of his children.

On appeal, he argued that the planning and deliberation must relate to the actual victims.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that under the Criminal Code, the intent to murder one person is sufficient mens rea if the accused accidentally kills another, and the planning and deliberation relates to the taking of a human life generally, not the specific identity of the victim.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder.

At trial, the judge precluded defence counsel from cross-examining a key Crown witness about an outstanding murder charge laid against him by the same police department.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by applying the curative proviso.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that cross-examination of a Crown witness concerning an outstanding indictment is proper to show possible motivation to seek favour with the prosecution.

The Court concluded that the curative proviso could not be applied because it could not be said that the jury would necessarily have reached the same verdict had the cross-examination been permitted.

The appellant pleaded guilty to second degree murder on an indictment of first degree murder without the intervention of a jury.

The trial judge increased the parole ineligibility period to 15 years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that a jury is not required for such a guilty plea, and declining to review the trial judge's application of principles regarding the parole ineligibility period.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder.

The Court of Appeal found several errors of law in the trial judge's charge to the jury regarding the appellant's alibi, drunkenness, and identification evidence, but dismissed the appeal by applying the curative proviso in s. 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing that the application of the proviso was an error of law.

The Supreme Court held that the application of the proviso always involves a question of law and is reviewable.

However, the Court concluded that the Court of Appeal correctly applied the proviso, as the verdict would necessarily have been the same even if the errors had not occurred, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario that allowed the accused's appeal from a murder conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada quashed the appeal as abandoned under section 623(2) of the Criminal Code, noting that the Crown was unable to make a supportable application for an order otherwise.