Jerome Kennedy

The Minister of Justice referred the appellant's 1990 second-degree murder conviction to the Court of Appeal after it was discovered that police failed to disclose an audio recording of an interview with an alternate suspect.

The Crown conceded the non-disclosure constituted a miscarriage of justice, requiring the conviction to be quashed.

The appellant sought an acquittal, arguing a police conspiracy to frame him and that his confession was false.

The Court of Appeal declined to enter an acquittal, finding that a properly instructed jury could still convict based on the appellant's voluntary confession and new DNA evidence linking him to the victim's clothing.

The Court ordered a new trial rather than a judicial stay of proceedings.

This appeal concerns a wrongful conviction for manslaughter, stemming from the unreliable expert evidence of disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith.

The appellant, convicted in 1997 for the death of a 17-month-old, sought an acquittal based on fresh expert evidence that contradicted the original "shaken baby syndrome" theory, proposing a "complex fall" as the cause of death.

The court admitted the fresh evidence, including a 911 call transcript and new expert opinions, finding that the modern forensic science undermined the trial evidence.

The court also discounted the appellant's police interview due to coercive interrogation techniques.

Given the lack of reasonable prospect for conviction, the appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and an acquittal entered.

The applicant initiated an application to enforce an agreement for a parcel of land that the respondent had failed to sign.

Before the application was heard, the respondent signed the agreement, rendering the primary relief sought moot.

The sole remaining issue was the applicant's entitlement to costs.

The court found that the application was reasonably commenced and was abandoned due to the respondent's actions.

Consequently, the applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $3,500, rejecting the respondent's argument for no costs and the applicant's request for substantial indemnity costs.