Iwona Kuklicz

Two appellants were convicted by jury of second degree murder for their participation in a group assault in which the victim was beaten and stabbed to death.

The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding no reviewable error in the jury charge and that the verdicts were not unreasonable.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals substantially for the reasons of the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal, agreeing that the jury charge adequately addressed the various paths to liability — including principal and co-principal liability — and that the verdicts were not unreasonable.

The Court added, however, that a finding of unreasonable verdict is itself an error of law justifying appellate intervention, and that an extricable error need not first be identified as a precondition.

The accused appealed a sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge's interventions during cross-examination created unfairness and a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court held that the interventions raised serious concerns and should not be repeated.

However, the court was not persuaded that a miscarriage of justice was established.

It concluded that a new trial was not warranted and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant challenged an order granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction requiring removal of identifying information about a young victim after a publication ban.

The Court held that for mandatory interlocutory injunctions, the first step requires a strong prima facie case, not merely a serious issue.

Because the Crown sought the injunction within a criminal contempt proceeding, it had to show a strong prima facie case of criminal contempt and failed to meet that burden.

The trial judge applied the correct framework, so appellate intervention was not warranted.