Joseph J. Blazina

The accused were charged with corruption, fraud, and breach of trust.

The Crown objected to disclosing unredacted documents, claiming informer privilege, and sought an ex parte, in camera hearing.

The trial judge allowed defence counsel to attend the hearing subject to undertakings.

The Crown appealed under s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge's decision was a disclosure order subject to appeal, and that the trial judge erred in permitting defence counsel to attend the hearing, as doing so would inevitably reveal information protected by the informer privilege.

The accused was arrested for multiple robberies.

During police interrogation, he offered to confess in exchange for lenient treatment for his girlfriend, who was also arrested.

The police officer denied being able to make a deal but allowed the accused to visit his girlfriend after a partial confession.

The trial judge admitted the statements as voluntary, but the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, finding that the trial judge properly applied the contextual approach to voluntariness and correctly concluded that the inducements were not strong enough to overbear the accused's will.

The accused was declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate prison term for a predicate offence committed prior to the enactment of the long-term offender provisions.

The sentencing judge held that the long-term offender provisions were not available.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, applying its companion decision in R. v. Johnson, holding that the sentencing judge was required to consider the possibility of a long-term offender designation prior to declaring the accused a dangerous offender.

The accused was charged with aggravated sexual assault but convicted at trial of the included offence of aggravated assault.

The trial judge had a reasonable doubt about the sexual nature of the assault because of possible prior consensual sexual activity or how the complainant became undressed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by considering legally irrelevant factors.

Applying the objective test from Chase, the Court found the assault was sexual in nature, set aside the acquittal, and entered a guilty verdict for aggravated sexual assault.