Joshua B. Hawkes

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder.

He appealed the conviction, arguing that the trial judge's charge on reasonable doubt misled the jury.

The trial judge did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's decision in Lifchus.

The majority of the Court of Appeal held that the charge was in substantial compliance with Lifchus and dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the charge, read as a whole, did not give rise to a reasonable likelihood that the jury misapprehended the correct standard of proof.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and indecent assault against his adopted daughter.

He appealed, seeking to introduce fresh evidence—a surreptitiously recorded tape of the complainant denying the abuse—which his trial counsel had tactically chosen not to use.

The appellant argued his trial counsel was incompetent for not using the tape and not consulting him.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel's decision was a competent tactical choice that did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and therefore the due diligence criterion for fresh evidence was not met.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge's guilty verdict was unreasonable.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal as of right, finding that the verdict reached by the trial judge was not unreasonable in all the circumstances of the case.