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.

Two groups of defendants brought summary judgment motions arising from a dispute over festival food and alcohol catering and alleged municipal interference.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found the evidentiary record sufficient to resolve the matter without a trial.

It held the plaintiffs failed to establish an enforceable long-term oral contract or any viable negligence or negligent misrepresentation claim against the festival defendants, and further held there was no basis for personal liability against the individual directors.

The claims against the mayor and municipality were also dismissed as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and, in any event, unsupported by evidence of bad faith or negligence under the Municipal Act, 2001.

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.

The defendant college moved under Rule 21 to strike a student's damages action arising from her withdrawal from a practical nursing program after complaints about social media posts.

The defendant argued the pleading alleged only breaches of procedural fairness and natural justice, which were matters for judicial review rather than a civil action.

Applying the stringent pleadings test, the court accepted the pleaded facts as true, read the claim generously despite poor drafting, and held the allegations disclosed an arguable cause of action in contract and/or tort.

The motion was dismissed, but no costs were awarded because the motion resulted from deficient pleading.