Graham J. Sleeth

The accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm.

At trial, the Crown did not call the victim of the assault to testify, relying instead on other witnesses and forensic evidence.

The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, holding that the Crown had a duty to call the victim.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, ruling that the Crown has broad discretion in deciding which witnesses to call, including the victim, and is not required to call all material witnesses absent an abuse of process.

The appellant challenged the warrantless taking of hair samples, buccal swabs, dental impressions, and a discarded tissue while in police custody following his arrest for murder.

The majority held that the common law power of search incidental to arrest did not extend to compelled bodily samples or dental impressions, and that those procedures infringed ss. 8 and 7 of the Charter.

The majority further held that the bodily sample evidence was conscriptive and not discoverable by lawful non‑conscriptive means, so its admission would render the trial unfair and require exclusion under s. 24(2).

Although the majority found the seizure of the discarded tissue also breached s. 8, it held that evidence from the mucous sample remained admissible.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant broadcaster challenged an order made by a trial judge under s. 486(1) of the Criminal Code excluding the public and media from part of the sentencing proceedings of an accused who pleaded guilty to sexual offences.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while s. 486(1) infringes the freedom of the press guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Charter, it is saved under s. 1 as a reasonable limit to protect the proper administration of justice.

However, the Court found that the trial judge erred in exercising his discretion to exclude the public in this specific case, as there was insufficient evidence to support a concern for undue hardship to the victims or the accused.

The appeal was allowed and the exclusion order was quashed.

The Crown appealed a decision of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal that ordered a new trial based on errors in the trial judge's charge to the jury.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the Crown counsel's address to the jury exceeded the limits laid down in Boucher v. The Queen, and the trial judge inadequately directed the jury regarding these improprieties.

The Court noted no error in the charge regarding corroborative or alibi evidence, but upheld the order for a new trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder, arguing that inculpatory statements made to undercover police officers after his release from custody were obtained in violation of his right to silence under section 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the appellant was not detained at the time the statements were made.

The Court further held that the police trickery used was not likely to shock the community or render the statements involuntary.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder, arguing that the trial judge's charge to the jury was flawed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that while the charge was open to criticism and the judge erred in treating s. 231(3) of the Criminal Code as an independent offence, the error was of no consequence.

The Court concluded that the jury was adequately instructed on the law, facts, and theories of both parties, ensuring a fair trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to commit prison breach, arguing the trial judge improperly drew an adverse inference from his failure to call witnesses.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions as to guilt operated independently of the adverse inference discussion.

The trial judge had made it clear that the Crown proved its case and the accused's story was unbelievable, making the adverse inference discussion a mere afterthought.

The Crown appealed as of right from a judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal that allowed an appeal from a conviction for uttering threats.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's charge to the jury.

The acquittal was set aside and the conviction restored.

The appellants were acquitted at trial of discharging a firearm with intent to avoid arrest after an exchange of gunfire with Forest Service officers.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal overturned the acquittals and ordered a new trial based on errors in the trial judge's jury directions regarding included offences.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court allowed the appeal and restored the acquittals.

The Court held that the interests of justice were best served by restoring the acquittals given the uncertainty concerning the rights and powers of the Forest Service officers at the time of the incident and the passage of over five years since the events occurred.