James C. Fleming

The seven appellants were convicted of trafficking in heroin following an undercover police operation.

They appealed their convictions on several grounds, primarily arguing that the 44.5-month delay between their charges and trial violated their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal agreed with respect to six of the appellants, finding the delay was largely systemic and caused prejudice, and ordered a stay of proceedings for those six.

The appeal of the seventh appellant, who was arrested much later, was dismissed on all grounds, including arguments regarding the destruction of police notes, jury instructions, and sentence fitness.

The appellant appealed convictions for four sexual offences against his step-daughter and sought leave to appeal a five-year sentence.

He argued that the trial judge improperly assessed the complainant’s credibility and reliability on demeanour alone and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The court held that, reading the reasons as a whole, the trial judge was alive to reliability concerns, inconsistencies, reluctance, and delayed disclosure, and was entitled to accept the complainant’s evidence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, leave to appeal sentence was granted, and the sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was fit.

The appellant injected the deceased with cocaine, resulting in her death from cardiac arrest and asphyxiation.

He was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the common law definition of unlawful act manslaughter, which requires only objective foreseeability of the risk of bodily harm rather than death, violates section 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the objective foreseeability of the risk of bodily harm is the appropriate mens rea for manslaughter and accords with the principles of fundamental justice.

The appellant was charged with sexual assault on a child and committed for trial 21 months later.

He successfully applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter had been infringed.

The Court of Appeal set aside the stay 14 months later.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that neither the pre-trial delay nor the appellate delay was unreasonable or caused real prejudice to the appellant.

Criminal appeal from an order setting aside an acquittal and directing a new trial after the trial judge limited both sides to four peremptory challenges and denied the Crown any stand bys.

The Supreme Court held, by majority, that the Crown's substantially greater ability to shape the jury through stand bys and peremptory challenges created a reasonable apprehension of partiality and infringed the accused's right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal under s. 11(d) of the Charter.

The infringement was not justified under s. 1.

The Court also held that statements made after counsel had been retained were properly excluded because the police response to the accused's inquiry about contact from his father was misleading in the circumstances.

The appeal was allowed and the acquittal restored.