Heather A. McArthur

The appellants were convicted of first-degree murder for an execution-style shooting related to a drug debt.

On appeal, they argued that the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury regarding unsavoury witnesses (Vetrovec warning) and the defence of abandonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's continuum approach to the Vetrovec warnings, his instructions on confirmatory evidence, or his charge on abandonment.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault following a shooting at a student pub.

He appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury regarding a firearms expert's testimony on muzzle flash, delivered an unbalanced jury charge, and erred in the instruction on post-offence conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's characterization of the expert evidence or the balance of the charge, and concluding that the error in the post-offence conduct instruction did not warrant setting aside the conviction.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder and attempted murder following a shooting at a bar.

On appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred in admitting the preliminary inquiry testimony of a witness who had since moved to Ukraine, claiming he lacked full opportunity to cross-examine due to late disclosure of a potential 'bail for testimony' deal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the 'full opportunity' requirement under s. 715 of the Criminal Code is not defeated by an accused's ignorance of potentially useful information, and that the admission did not render the trial fairness.

The Court also found no error in the trial judge's decision not to give a Vetrovec warning, as defence counsel had not requested one and the jury was adequately cautioned.

The police responded to a 911 call reporting individuals with handguns in a strip club parking lot.

Officers set up a roadblock at the exit and stopped the first vehicle to leave.

The occupants, who matched the general description of the suspects, were asked to exit the vehicle.

One occupant fled, was apprehended, and found to possess a loaded handgun.

The other occupant was subsequently searched, and a loaded handgun was also found on him.

The trial judge admitted the evidence, but the Court of Appeal excluded it, finding violations of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, holding that the initial detention and subsequent searches were justified under the common law police powers and did not violate the Charter.

The appellants were committed to stand trial for first degree murder following a preliminary inquiry.

They applied for certiorari to quash the committals, arguing a denial of natural justice because they were not permitted to make submissions on post-offence conduct evidence.

The reviewing judge found a denial of natural justice but dismissed the application, concluding the appellants suffered no prejudice as committal was inevitable.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that a reviewing judge has inherent jurisdiction to refuse certiorari where no prejudice occurs, and found sufficient evidence of planning and deliberation to support the committals.

The police received a 911 call about black men with handguns outside a strip club and set up a roadblock to stop all vehicles leaving the parking lot.

The appellants, who did not match the descriptions provided, were stopped, detained, and searched, leading to the discovery of loaded handguns.

The Court of Appeal held that the roadblock stop was an unconstitutional exercise of ancillary police powers, resulting in arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure.

The handguns were excluded from evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to the seriousness of the breaches and systemic police training failures, and acquittals were entered.

The appellants, who were committed for trial on charges of first degree murder, appealed the dismissal of their applications to quash the committal order.

They brought a motion seeking an order that they not be required to pay for additional copies of the preliminary inquiry transcripts for the appeal, having already paid for copies used in the Superior Court.

They also sought an order requiring the court reporters to produce the transcripts on diskette for a nominal fee.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that rule 8(7) of the Criminal Appeal Rules is intended to avoid unnecessary duplication of expense, and ordered the court reporters to produce the transcripts on diskette for $1 each.

The appellant appealed jury convictions on two counts of trafficking in a narcotic, arguing loss of identification evidence, inadequate jury instructions on in-dock identification, inconsistent verdicts, and unreasonable verdicts.

The court held that the lost identification card relating to an acquitted count caused no prejudice to the defence on the remaining count.

It further found the jury was thoroughly instructed on the frailties and unfairness of in-dock identification.

Considering the surveillance, close-range observations, self-identification to police, and other objective features of identification, the court concluded the verdicts were reasonably supported by the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants, the owner and manager of a tavern, were charged with allowing indecent performances under s. 167(1) of the Criminal Code after undercover police observed lap dancing involving sexual contact between nude dancers and patrons.

The trial judge acquitted both, finding the performances were not indecent and the owner lacked mens rea.

The Court of Appeal overturned the acquittals.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the performances were indecent as they exceeded the community standard of tolerance due to the degrading nature of the sexual contact in a public tavern.

The manager's conviction was upheld.

However, the Court restored the owner's acquittal, finding the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the trial judge's factual finding that the owner lacked the requisite mens rea because he had reasonably delegated entertainment responsibilities to the manager.