Jean-François Dionne

The appellant sought to appeal his murder conviction as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada, relying on a dissent in the Court of Appeal.

The Crown brought an application to quash the appeal.

The Supreme Court granted the application, finding that the dissenting judge's disagreement concerned the adequacy of the facts selected by the trial judge in instructing the jury, rather than a question of law.

As there was no dissent on a question of law, the appeal as of right under s. 691(1)(a) of the Criminal Code was quashed.

The appellant appealed a judgment dismissing his application for certiorari regarding the jurisdiction, independence, and impartiality of a Justice of the Peace.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant did not challenge the constitutionality of the relevant Criminal Code provisions and failed to provide evidence that the Justice of the Peace infringed his rights under section 7 of the Charter.

The appellant and an accomplice committed an armed robbery during which the accomplice shot and killed a client.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder under the constructive murder provisions of s. 213(d) of the Criminal Code, despite testifying he believed the gun was unloaded.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 213(d) violates sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter because it allows for a murder conviction without proof beyond a reasonable doubt of at least objective foreseeability of death.

The provision was not saved by section 1, and a new trial was ordered.

The respondents were charged with conspiracy to commit robbery.

At trial, they sought to introduce the results of a polygraph examination to support their credibility and deny participation in the conspiracy.

The trial judge refused to admit the evidence, and they were convicted.

The Court of Appeal allowed their appeal and ordered the trial reopened to consider the polygraph evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that polygraph evidence is inadmissible in criminal proceedings because it offends the rules against oath-helping, past consistent statements, and character evidence, and because assessing credibility is the exclusive province of the trier of fact.

The accused was charged with obstructing justice and committed after refusing to testify at the preliminary hearing of another accused.

The accused applied for certiorari to set aside the committal, which was dismissed by the Superior Court but allowed by the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the Superior Court's judgment, noting that the judge did not exercise the powers of committal conferred by section 472 of the Criminal Code, rendering the questions raised in the Court of Appeal moot.

The accused was convicted of conspiracy to commit fraud based on a confession obtained after police repeatedly denied him the right to consult a lawyer.

The trial judge admitted the confession, but the Court of Appeal excluded it, finding the denial of counsel created an atmosphere of coercion that raised a reasonable doubt about voluntariness.

The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court quashed the appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal's difference of opinion with the trial judge on the factual effect of the police refusals did not raise a question of law.