D. J. Avison

The appellant appealed a conviction for trafficking in a narcotic.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that an error had been made and it could not be concluded that the result would necessarily have been the same without the error.

However, as there was remaining evidence upon which a trier of fact could reasonably convict, a new trial was ordered rather than an acquittal.

The taxpayer was convicted for failing to comply with the Minister's demand for information under the Income Tax Act.

The Minister subsequently made a second demand for the same information, and the taxpayer was convicted again.

The Court of Appeal set aside the second conviction, holding that only one demand could be made.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that further demands by the Minister create fresh time periods for compliance and fresh offences for non-compliance, as the purpose of the provisions is to enforce compliance with the self-assessment system of taxation.

The appellant was acquitted at trial on a charge of conspiracy to traffic in narcotics following a directed verdict.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that there was evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably have convicted.