Gabriel Lapointe

The appellant was convicted of indecent assault and buggery.

The trial judge admitted similar fact evidence but found each count proved beyond a reasonable doubt before analyzing that evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, applying the curative proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, finding that a properly instructed jury could not reasonably have come to a different conclusion if the similar fact evidence had not been admitted.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder after shooting a highway patrol officer.

At trial, he admitted to the killing but raised the defence of insanity.

The Crown adduced evidence that the appellant was a suspect in a New York murder to explain his flight, and Crown counsel made highly prejudicial remarks about a defence psychiatric expert during the address to the jury.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the presumption of sanity in s. 16(4) of the Criminal Code infringes s. 11(d) of the Charter, it is saved by s. 1.

However, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial because the trial judge's failure to comment on Crown counsel's prejudicial remarks in the jury charge constituted an error of law that could not be cured by the proviso.

The applicants sought an extension of time to hear their appeal, which had been postponed from the April 1980 sitting to October.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the motion, holding that the appeal was deemed to be abandoned under section 623(2) of the Criminal Code.