Gabriel Gross-Stein

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder following a shooting that occurred during a drug transaction.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in responding to a jury question by failing to instruct the jury on the defence of a third party under former s. 37 of the Criminal Code, and by inadequately addressing the mens rea component of the question.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The court found there was no air of reality to the proportionality requirement of s. 37, as shooting the victim in the core to defend a third party who was not in immediate peril constituted excessive force.

The court also held that the trial judge's instruction on mens rea was correct and comprehensive.

The appellant, an inmate, fatally stabbed a fellow inmate and was convicted of first-degree murder.

At trial, the appellant claimed self-defence and testified to three prior incidents that were never put to the Crown's witnesses during cross-examination.

The trial judge ruled that defence counsel breached the rule in Browne v. Dunn and remedied the breach with a jury instruction rather than recalling the witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was entitled to find a breach of the rule and that the jury instruction was a reasonable and proper remedy in the circumstances.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired care or control and driving with excess alcohol.

He argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay, in exhibiting a reasonable apprehension of bias by preparing reasons before hearing submissions, in failing to exclude breath readings due to a s. 2(a) Charter breach involving the removal of his turban, and in rejecting his evidence of bolus drinking.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in his s. 11(b) analysis, his s. 2(a) analysis, and his credibility findings regarding the appellant's bolus drinking defence.

A new trial was ordered on both counts.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by permitting the Crown to cross-examine a recanting witness on a prior inconsistent police statement under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act, and that the Crown's closing address improperly invited the jury to use the statement for its truth.

He also challenged the adequacy of the Vetrovec warning regarding the Crown's key witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the limited cross-examination served the ends of justice, the jury was properly instructed on the use of the statement, and the Vetrovec warning adequately cautioned the jury while properly identifying independent confirmatory evidence.

The accused applied to exclude recordings of telephone conversations made while he was an inmate in a federal penitentiary, arguing that the interception violated his s. 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure.

The calls had been recorded by correctional authorities and later seized by police pursuant to a search warrant.

The court held that the accused failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the communications, given institutional policies, warning signs, and signed acknowledgments indicating calls could be monitored or recorded.

The presence of a third party on the calls further undermined any claim of privacy.

As a result, the court found no Charter breach and declined to exclude the evidence.