Earl C. Wilson

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Appeal that overturned a trial judge's order staying proceedings.

The trial judge had granted the stay because the Crown failed to produce the original statement and tape, providing only copies and a transcript.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Crown fulfilled its disclosure obligations by producing copies and explaining the absence of the originals, which did not reveal any misconduct.

The Court also found no merit in the appellant's argument regarding a violation of s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal that quashed the accused's conviction for manslaughter.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, agreeing with the dissenting reasons in the Court of Appeal that the trial judge's conclusion that the accused inflicted the fatal injuries was not unreasonable.

The conviction for manslaughter and the conditional stay of proceedings for aggravated assault were restored.

The accused was charged under the Young Offenders Act with theft committed when he was 17.

At age 18, he made an inculpatory statement to police without being advised of his right to have an adult present, as required for young persons under s. 56(2) of the Act.

The trial judge excluded the statement and acquitted the accused.

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

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused's appeal, holding that the special protections in s. 56(2) do not apply to statements made by an accused who is 18 years of age or older, as the context of the provision requires the term 'young person' to be limited to those under 18.

The appellant appealed his conviction for rape, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting prior statements by the complainant.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal from the bench, agreeing with the Alberta Court of Appeal that the statements were admissible to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication.

The appellants were charged with conspiracy to commit robbery and kidnapping.

The Crown's case relied on private communications intercepted via a listening device surreptitiously installed in a co-accused's vehicle and powered by its battery.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the installation of the device was lawful and authorized by necessary implication under Part IV.1 of the Criminal Code.

However, the Court found that one appellant's communications were inadmissible because she was a 'known' person to the police but was not named in the authorization, and the 'basket clause' for unknown persons could not apply to her.

Her appeal was allowed, while the other appellant's appeal was dismissed.