Ivan Lerner

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury on the application of reasonable doubt to the issue of credibility, particularly where the Crown's case hinged on an accomplice's testimony and the accused denied participation.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, adopting the dissenting reasons of Fish J.A. at the Quebec Court of Appeal.

L'Heureux-Dubé J. dissented, finding no error in the jury charge.

The accused was acquitted of first-degree murder at trial.

The Crown appealed, arguing that defence counsel incorrectly summarized evidence concerning access to the accused's car in his address to the jury, and the trial judge failed to correct these errors.

The Quebec Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

The accused appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the Crown had met the burden of showing that the verdict would not necessarily have been the same had the evidence been correctly summarized.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder to the Supreme Court of Canada, raising issues regarding the admissibility of evidence.

The Court delivered a brief oral judgment dismissing the appeal, finding no error in the majority decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal.

The appellant was convicted of fraudulently undertaking to tell fortunes for a consideration under s. 323(b) of the Criminal Code.

She appealed, arguing she honestly believed she had special powers to predict the future.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the defence of honest belief was not open on the facts because the trial judge had explicitly found that the appellant knew she had no basis for her claim to be able to predict the future.

The appellant, convicted of possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking, filed an appeal and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the habeas corpus petition on the basis that the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the trial court could have been raised by way of appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that habeas corpus does not lie in these circumstances, noting that the legal issues would be addressed in the appellant's separate appeal on the merits.