Joanne Marceau

The Crown appealed from a provincial appellate acquittal after conceding insufficient proof of attempted incest and seeking substituted convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference.

The majority held that fair notice of legal jeopardy must be ascertainable from the offence charged, the enactment creating it, or the wording of the count, and that the Crown could not rely on trial evidence or the accused's personal knowledge to expand the charge.

Because incest does not necessarily include non-consensual touching or an underage complainant, sexual assault and sexual interference were not included offences under s. 662 of the Criminal Code on this indictment.

The appeal was dismissed, with a dissent concluding that sexual assault was included on the facts and notice given.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of Criminal Code provisions governing accused persons found unfit to stand trial, arguing that permanently unfit accused who do not pose a significant threat to public safety were kept indefinitely within the criminal process.

The majority held that the provisions fell within Parliament’s criminal law and criminal procedure jurisdiction, but that they infringed s. 7 of the Charter because they were overbroad as applied to permanently unfit accused who could never be tried and who were not dangerous.

The Court held the regime could not be justified under s. 1 because it failed minimal impairment.

A declaration of invalidity was granted and suspended for 12 months to permit legislative amendment.

The accused was convicted of first degree murder after the trial judge refused to put the defence of mental disorder automatism to the jury.

The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by weighing the evidence rather than simply determining if there was some evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably conclude that the accused acted involuntarily.

The accused's testimony and the expert psychiatric evidence provided a sufficient evidential foundation to put the defence to the jury.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal finding an Internet lottery scheme unlawful under the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal from the bench, adopting the reasons of the Chief Justice of Prince Edward Island.