Henri-Pierre Labrie

A prisoner appealed the setting aside of a stay entered after a trial judge found a section 7 breach arising from severe mistreatment by a state actor during transport custody.

The Court held that appellate review of section 24(1) remedies is highly deferential and intervention is justified only for legal error, reviewable factual error, or a clearly unjust result.

On the trial findings, the stay remained an available and proportionate remedy in exceptional circumstances where continuation would undermine confidence in the administration of justice.

The Court also held that, when setting aside a stay, an appellate court may in appropriate cases remit the matter for continuation of trial under Criminal Code sections 686(4) and 686(8).

During a drug trafficking investigation, police discovered a loaded firearm in a hidden compartment of the respondent's vehicle while installing listening devices.

The trial judge found the search violated section 8 of the Charter but admitted the evidence under section 24(2), leading to a conviction for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision and excluded the evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the trial judge's section 24(2) analysis was entitled to deference and that applying the Grant framework supported admitting the evidence.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a person with a disability.

The complainant, who had a mild mental disability, gave inconsistent testimony, including conflicting statements about inventing the allegations.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, relying on the complainant's prior consistent statements to corroborate her testimony, without explaining how he resolved the inconsistencies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons explaining how he resolved the significant credibility issues and erred in using prior consistent statements to corroborate the complainant's testimony.

The Supreme Court of Canada considered four appeals involving offenders who had been detained for significant periods before being sentenced.

The trial judges imposed custodial sentences of less than two years and probation for three years, taking into account the pre-sentence custody.

In one case, the judge also ordered the offender to serve half his sentence before being eligible for parole.

The Court held that the term of imprisonment is the term imposed by the judge at the time of sentence, and pre-sentence custody is not part of the sentence but a factor taken into account.

Therefore, the sentences were less than two years, making the probation orders valid and the parole ineligibility order invalid.

The appellant, a director of public security, asked a subordinate officer to prepare a supplementary accident report regarding his daughter's car accident.

The supplementary report concluded his daughter was not at fault, saving the appellant a $250 insurance deductible.

He was convicted of breach of trust by a public officer under s. 122 of the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal, establishing a five-part test for the offence.

The Court held that the offence requires both a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of the office, and an intention to use the office for a purpose other than the public good.

The appellant's conduct was found to be a mere error in judgment lacking the requisite mens rea and actus reus.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault against a young child who attended a daycare operated by his wife.

The trial judge found the child's declarations reliable and rejected the accused's testimony, finding his explanations to be attempts at justification.

The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction, holding that the trial judge's reasons for rejecting the accused's testimony were insufficient.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the trial judge's reasons, viewed as a whole, adequately demonstrated the rationale behind her findings on credibility and reasonable doubt, and were sufficiently amenable to appellate review.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder.

At his trial, the Crown cross-examined him extensively on incriminating statements he had made while testifying at his brother's separate trial for the same murder, where he had invoked section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the cross-examination violated section 13 of the Charter because there was a realistic danger that the prior testimony could be used to incriminate him, not merely to test his credibility.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The Crown appealed from a Quebec Court of Appeal decision ordering a new trial for the respondents on charges of conspiracy to import cocaine.

The Court of Appeal had found an appearance of interference by the Crown with the trial judge's judicial independence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, agreeing that there was an appearance of interference.

The Court also dismissed the respondents' cross-appeals seeking a stay of proceedings, finding no basis to distinguish the matter from Tobiass and upholding the order for a new trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault with a weapon, procuring, and theft.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons of the majority in the Quebec Court of Appeal, with LeBel J. dissenting.

The accused pleaded guilty to 15 counts arising from a home invasion robbery and was sentenced to 10.5 years imprisonment.

On appeal, the accused sought to introduce fresh evidence in the form of two expert psychological/psychiatric reports.

The Court of Appeal admitted the reports and reduced the sentence.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the Palmer criteria for admitting fresh evidence apply equally to appeals against sentence as they do to appeals against conviction.

The Court found the expert reports inadmissible because they were based on a version of facts rejected by the trial judge, thus lacking sufficient probative value to affect the result.

However, the Court substituted a sentence of 8.5 years due to an error in principle by the trial judge.

The accused was convicted of four counts of murder based largely on the testimony of an informer.

During the trial, the Crown announced it would call a corroborating witness but later declined to do so.

The trial judge prevented defence counsel from commenting on the missing witness in the jury address.

The Court of Appeal found this to be an error of law and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed it was an error but applied the curative proviso, finding no reasonable possibility that the verdict would have been different had the error not occurred.

The appeal was allowed and the convictions restored.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal that overturned a stay of proceedings.

The trial judge had ordered the stay due to a 20-month delay between the issuance of an arrest warrant and the actual arrest, finding a breach of the right to be informed of the specific offence without unreasonable delay under section 11(a) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that there was no proof of prejudice to the accused.

In an addendum, the Chief Justice noted that an infringement of section 11(a) could potentially be established based on economic prejudice, rather than solely on prejudice to the right to a fair trial.