Elliot Holzman

The Crown appealed a Court of Appeal decision restoring stay applications for abuse of process that a trial judge had summarily dismissed following a Vukelich hearing.

The accused had alleged systemic police misconduct and inhumane conditions of confinement prejudicing their right to a fair trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal and held that the correct threshold for summary dismissal of applications in the criminal law context is whether the application is manifestly frivolous — a rigorous standard requiring that the frivolous nature of the application be obvious on the face of the record.

The trial judge erred by failing to assume the truth of the alleged facts and inferences and by applying an insufficiently rigorous threshold that slid towards the merits of the underlying applications.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after the trial judge found that the victim's unlawful confinement in a moving truck had ended when the victim jumped out and therefore the murder was not committed 'while committing' unlawful confinement under s. 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal substituted a conviction for first degree murder, holding that unlawful confinement continued after the victim escaped from the truck and that the confinement and murder were part of a single transaction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, confirming that unlawful confinement does not require physical restraint in an enclosed space and that coercive restraint through violence, fear, and intimidation suffices.

The Court held that the victim remained unlawfully confined as he ran for his life, and that the unlawful confinement and murder were temporally and causally connected, forming a single continuous transaction.

The appellant Crown appealed a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal which had set aside the respondent's sexual assault conviction and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal majority had found the trial judge erred by using text messages exchanged between the complainant and the accused as prior consistent statements to corroborate the complainant's evidence, by failing to hold a voir dire to determine their relevance, and in the approach to the W.(D.) analysis.

The Supreme Court, by majority, allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, adopting the reasons of the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeal.

Justices Côté and Brown dissented and would have dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons of the Court of Appeal majority.