Geneviève Coulombe

Following a successful appeal where a new trial was ordered, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The court noted that while the appellants were successful, they could have achieved the same result with more judicious effort.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements, payable following the new trial or settlement.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their action regarding a defective well in a real estate transaction.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge made two palpable and overriding errors.

First, the trial judge misinterpreted testimony regarding when modifications were made to the Seller Property Information Statement.

Second, the trial judge failed to consider and evaluate the evidence of several witnesses, including an expert hydrogeologist, who testified that the well was defective prior to the sale.

The Crown appealed a Quebec Court of Appeal decision quashing a direct indictment preferred against two young persons charged with serious drug and criminal organization offences alongside adults.

The majority held that a direct indictment under s. 577 of the Criminal Code is available in youth proceedings because it is not inconsistent with the YCJA when read with ss. 67(7), 67(9), and 140.

The Court further held that, despite the availability of direct indictment, young persons and adults cannot be tried jointly because the YCJA establishes a criminal justice system for young persons that is separate from the adult system.

The appeal was allowed, but because the direct indictment issue had become moot after a preliminary inquiry was later held, no further order was made.

The respondents, owners of a second-hand store, purchased goods from an undercover police officer who hinted the goods were stolen.

They were charged with laundering proceeds of crime under s. 462.31 of the Criminal Code, specifically for transferring the possession of property.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the French version of s. 462.31, which is narrower than the English version, must be favoured under the rules of bilingual statutory interpretation.

Under the French version, the act of purchasing property does not constitute a 'transfer of possession'.

The Court also clarified that the term 'convert' does not require an intent to conceal.

The appeal by the Crown was dismissed.

The appellant, a commissioned officer in the Canadian Armed Forces, was charged with being absent without leave after failing to report to a new posting.

She argued that she honestly believed she had resigned from the Armed Forces and therefore lacked the requisite mens rea.

She also challenged the constitutionality of the General Court Martial under s. 11(d) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the structure of the General Court Martial infringed s. 11(d) of the Charter, applying its concurrent decision in R. v. Généreux.

The Court also noted that an honest mistake about the legal consequences of one's actions does not constitute a defence to the charge.

The appellant, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, challenged convictions entered by a General Court Martial on the basis that the military tribunal lacked the independence required by s. 11(d) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court held that s. 11 applies to General Court Martial proceedings and that a separate military justice system is constitutionally permissible, but found that the tribunal's structure at the time lacked sufficient security of tenure, financial security, and institutional independence.

The court further held that the infringement was not justified under s. 1.

The appellant's ss. 7 and 15 arguments failed, and evidence obtained through a constitutionally defective search was nevertheless admissible under s. 24(2).

A new trial was ordered.