J. Thomas Wiley

The appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter in 1992 in connection with the death of her stepdaughter, largely based on the pathology evidence of Dr. Charles Smith.

Decades later, fresh expert evidence unanimously discredited Dr. Smith's findings regarding the cause and mechanism of death.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding that the original guilty plea was uninformed and the conviction unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and an acquittal was entered.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking after a brick of cocaine wrapped in his T-shirt was found in the fuse box of a commercial truck he was a passenger in.

The truck was driven by a co-accused who testified against him.

Applying the W. (D.) test and a Vetrovec caution, the court rejected the accused's testimony as incredible and found him guilty on both counts based on circumstantial evidence, video surveillance, and the co-accused's testimony.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the Crown's closing address to the jury undermined the principle of jury unanimity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the argument was contrary to established jurisprudence and noting that the only live issue at trial was consent.

The Court considered whether 2008 Criminal Code amendments limiting evidence to challenge breath test reliability applied to a trial concerning earlier events.

A majority held the amendments affected substantive rights because they eliminated the Carter defence as an independent route to raise reasonable doubt and therefore should not apply retrospectively.

The Court restored the trial acquittal and allowed the appeal.

A dissent would have treated the provisions as procedural evidentiary rules with immediate effect.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving over 80.

Before the trial concluded, the 'evidence to the contrary' provisions of s. 258(1) of the Criminal Code were amended by Bill C-2, altering the requirements for the Carter defence.

The trial judge and summary conviction appeal judge held that the amendments did not apply retrospectively and acquitted the accused.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the amendments are essentially evidentiary in nature and do not eliminate the defence, but merely alter its evidentiary content.

Therefore, the amendments apply retrospectively to trials continuing after their enactment.