John Norris

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal that allowed the accused's appeal from his conviction for sexual assault.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge did not err in finding the similar fact evidence inadmissible.

The appellant was charged with first degree murder and denied bail under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

He challenged the constitutionality of the provision, arguing it violated the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause under s. 11(e) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the portion of s. 515(10)(c) permitting detention 'on any other just cause being shown' is unconstitutionally vague and violates s. 11(e).

However, the Court severed this phrase and upheld the remainder of the provision, which allows bail to be denied where necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual assault and a sentence of six months' imprisonment.

The court held that the trial judge made two errors in assessing the complainant's evidence: using jointly reconstructed evidence about age to bolster credibility, and failing to test credibility and reliability against the improbability of the alleged incident occurring in a public park in broad daylight.

Taken together, those errors rendered the verdict unsafe.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a jury conviction for counselling murder arising from an alleged arrangement with a co-accused witness to kill a prospective witness in unrelated property offences.

He argued the verdict was inconsistent with acquittals on conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder, that the jury charge on counselling was flawed, that a prior guilty plea to possession of property obtained by crime was wrongly admitted, and that the Crown’s closing unfairly overstated the target witness’s importance.

The Court of Appeal held the verdicts were not violently at odds because the offences were separately defined and involved materially different elements, the charge as a whole could not have misled the jury, the prior guilty plea was admissible, and the closing address disclosed no reversible error.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed an order staying historic sexual offence charges on the basis that the respondent could not make full answer and defence because key potential defence witnesses were dead or unavailable after several decades.

The court reviewed the trial judge's application of the abuse of process and fundamental justice framework under ss. 7, 11(d), and 24(1) of the Charter.

It held that the trial judge properly assessed the affidavit evidence concerning missing Children's Aid Society and foster home personnel and committed no error in law.

The appeal was dismissed and the stay remained in place.