Joseph Alexander Neuberger

The applicant, Nishnawbe Aski Nation, sought a stay of a coroner's inquest into the death of an aboriginal youth pending an application for judicial review.

The judicial review challenged the Coroner's refusal to issue a summons to a government official regarding the representativeness of First Nations people on the jury roll under the Juries Act.

The Divisional Court granted the stay, finding that the representativeness of the jury roll raised a serious issue, that proceeding with a potentially unrepresentative jury could cause irreparable harm to public confidence, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The appellant appealed his convictions for multiple sexual assaults and his designation as a dangerous offender.

He argued that a saliva sample used for DNA comparison was obtained in violation of his Charter rights under s. 8 and s. 10(b).

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant provided a valid, informed waiver that severed any connection between the prior s. 10(b) breach and the taking of the sample.

The court also found no error in the jury instructions regarding expert DNA evidence or in the trial judge's dangerous offender designation, which properly assessed the appellant's treatability and risk to the community.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants were stopped for speeding on a highway.

The police officers, suspecting the appellants were drug couriers based on neutral indicators, detained them and requested to search their rental car without advising them of their right to counsel.

After the passenger withdrew his initial consent, the officers searched the trunk and found 22 pounds of marijuana.

The Court of Appeal held that the police breached the appellants' rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The majority concluded that the breaches were serious and that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s. 24(2).

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and acquittals were entered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possessing and transferring firearms after selling starter pistols to an undercover officer.

The appellant argued the pistols were deemed not to be firearms under s. 84(3)(b) of the Criminal Code because they were designed exclusively for firing blank cartridges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the pistols were designed exclusively for blanks, the appellant knew the officer intended to convert them to fire live ammunition, thus failing the second conjunctive requirement of the exemption.

The accused was convicted of manslaughter in the asphyxiation death of a four-month-old infant.

The Crown had originally charged first degree murder, but the trial judge directed a verdict of acquittal on that charge.

The accused appealed the manslaughter conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge erred in failing to answer a jury question regarding the sequence of events.

The Crown appealed the directed verdict of acquittal.

The Court of Appeal held that the manslaughter verdict was not unreasonable when considering all the evidence, including evidence of smothering that the trial judge improperly excluded.

However, the Court allowed the accused's appeal and ordered a new trial because the trial judge erred in refusing to assist the jury with their question about the mother's evidence.

The Court also allowed the Crown's appeal, finding there was sufficient evidence of intent and smothering to leave the first degree murder charge with the jury, and ordered a new trial on that charge.