Donald B. Bayne

The appellants faced citizenship revocation proceedings for allegedly concealing their involvement in WWII atrocities.

Due to delays in the Federal Court Trial Division, a senior Department of Justice official met privately with the Chief Justice of the Federal Court to express concern.

The Chief Justice then spoke to the Associate Chief Justice handling the cases, who subsequently expedited the schedule.

The appellants successfully moved for a stay of proceedings on the basis that this ex parte communication compromised judicial independence.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the stay.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appellants' appeal, holding that while the appearance of judicial independence was significantly compromised, a stay of proceedings was not the appropriate remedy.

The Court directed that the cases proceed before a different judge, balancing the affront to judicial independence against society's pressing interest in seeing alleged war criminals brought to justice.

The appellant wrote anonymous letters to three cheerleaders threatening to rape them.

He was acquitted at trial on the basis that a threat to rape did not necessarily constitute a threat to cause serious bodily harm under s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal and entered convictions.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that 'serious bodily harm' includes psychological harm and that a threat to rape, viewed objectively in its context, constitutes a threat to cause serious bodily harm.

The appellant was charged with murder and underwent two trials, the first resulting in a conviction that was overturned on appeal, and the second ending in a mistrial.

A third trial was scheduled five years after the initial charge.

The appellant sought a stay of proceedings, arguing that the Crown's refusal to accept a manslaughter plea and its objection to a judge-alone trial constituted an abuse of process, and that the five-year delay violated his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no prosecutorial misconduct to justify an abuse of process.

The Court also held that the s. 11(b) right was not infringed, as the overall delay was largely attributable to the appellant's own tactical decisions, particularly his delays in retaining counsel, and the inherent time requirements of appellate and retrial proceedings.

The appellants, charged with murder in Ontario, sought to waive their right to a jury trial and be tried by a judge alone.

The Criminal Code required a jury trial for murder in all provinces except Alberta.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while an accused can waive the benefit of a jury trial under s. 11(f) of the Charter, this does not create a constitutional right to a non-jury trial that overrides the Criminal Code.

The Court also held that the geographic distinction allowing non-jury trials only in Alberta did not violate s. 15 of the Charter, as persons accused of murder outside Alberta do not constitute a disadvantaged group subject to discrimination.

The accused was charged with second degree murder but committed for trial on first degree murder following a preliminary inquiry.

The Crown filed an indictment for first degree murder.

The accused challenged the committal by way of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the mere filing of an indictment does not bar an accused from challenging a committal; an indictment is only 'preferred' when lodged with a trial court ready to proceed.

Furthermore, a preliminary inquiry judge only has jurisdiction to commit an accused for the specific charge laid in the information or an included offence, not for any other offence disclosed by the evidence.

The Crown's appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was acquitted at trial on a charge of conspiracy to use forged documents after the trial judge excluded wiretap evidence following an extensive voir dire.

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

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused's appeal, adopting the reasons of the Court of Appeal regarding the proper scope of a voir dire for wiretap evidence.