3 total
The Court of Appeal upheld a first-degree murder conviction, finding the trial judge's jury instructions on call tracing and voice identification evidence adequate.
The appellant was convicted of first degree murder in the death of Diane Werendowicz, who was sexually assaulted and strangled in 1981.
The appellant's DNA matched semen found on the victim.
The case proceeded through four trials: the first resulted in conviction (later overturned on appeal), the second and third ended in hung juries, and the fourth resulted in conviction.
The Crown's key evidence included a 911 call traced to a phone booth near the appellant's workplace, voice identification evidence, and DNA evidence.
The appellant challenged the trial judge's jury instructions on the call tracing evidence, voice identification evidence, and other matters.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury instructions adequate and fair.
Defendants awarded partial then substantial indemnity costs after beating offer to settle.
Following a trial in which the defendants successfully defended multiple claims including breach of contract, spoliation, unjust enrichment, and property-related torts, the court determined costs.
The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs and recovery of professional fees for several witnesses characterized as participating experts.
The court confirmed that participating experts may justify reasonable compensation where their expertise arises from involvement in the underlying events.
Applying Rules 49 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles of proportionality, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the date of the defendants’ offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.
Current land value for reserve leases means hypothetical on-reserve fee simple value, discounted for reserve features.
The Musqueam Indian Band surrendered reserve land to the Crown for leasing.
The land was subdivided, serviced, and leased to individuals for 99 years.
The leases provided for rent reviews, stating rent should be 6 percent of the 'current land value' of 'unimproved lands'.
The parties disagreed on whether 'current land value' meant fee simple value off-reserve or leasehold value on-reserve, and whether 'unimproved' meant unserviced.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that 'current land value' refers to the hypothetical fee simple value of the land on the reserve, which requires a 50 percent discount from comparable off-reserve land to account for Indian reserve features.
The Court also held that 'unimproved' means unserviced, so servicing costs must be deducted from the land value.