Elizabeth Bennett

The Crown appealed a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal that ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that an unfortunate reference during the jury recharge to inadmissible evidence tendered on a voir dire so affected the verdict on all three counts that a new trial was required, particularly because credibility was crucial to all charges.

The appellant appealed her conviction for assault causing bodily harm, arguing that a stay of proceedings should have been granted due to an 11-year delay in laying charges.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

Three justices dissented, stating they would have allowed the appeal to the extent of entering a stay of proceedings.

The Crown appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada based on a dissenting opinion in the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal had set aside the accused's conviction for attempted murder.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, agreeing with the dissenting judge that the majority of the Court of Appeal had merely disagreed with the trial judge on the weight of evidence, which did not constitute an error of law.

The respondent pleaded guilty to unlawful confinement shortly before his trial.

His co-accused was subsequently acquitted of the same charge by a jury.

The respondent appealed to withdraw his guilty plea based on the co-accused's acquittal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and substituted an acquittal, finding the respondent could not have aided and abetted an offence that was not committed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and reinstated the conviction, holding that the facts supported the respondent's conviction as a principal, and the acquittal of a co-accused is only conclusive between the Crown and that co-accused.

The appellant appealed his conviction, alleging that the trial judge was not impartial because he asked questions of the appellant.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that a properly instructed jury acting judicially could reasonably have entered a conviction based on the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault causing bodily harm against a minor.

The central issue was the admissibility of a note written by the complainant 45 minutes after the incident and whether there was sufficient confirmatory evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by the majority of the Court of Appeal, affirming the conviction.

The appellant was convicted of wilfully setting fire to material likely to cause a building to catch fire under s. 434(a) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge found the appellant acted recklessly by burning a large package of clothing in a small fireplace using gasoline while intoxicated, and leaving the fire unattended.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's actions met the standard for wilfulness under either an objective or subjective test.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge failed to direct the jury on the defence of honest but mistaken belief as to consent.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal in a brief oral judgment.