Karen B. Molle

The appellant and a co-accused were convicted of second degree murder in a stabbing death of a victim who owed a drug debt.

The trial judge expressly refrained from finding that the appellant personally stabbed the victim, and the subjective mens rea for murder under s. 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code was not clearly analyzed.

The Court of Appeal majority erred by making a finding of fact that the trial judge declined to make and by accepting the trial judge's statement of intent as sufficient to support the murder conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal but substituted a verdict of manslaughter, remitting the matter to the trial judge for sentencing.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault with a weapon and unlawful confinement, arguing the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal for Alberta had dismissed the appeal, deferring to the trial judge's credibility assessment.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal, finding the verdict was not unreasonable and the convictions were properly upheld.

Two accused appealed convictions for failing to provide the necessaries of life to their son.

The court agreed with the dissenting appellate reasons that the trial judge conflated actus reus and mens rea and inadequately explained marked departure to the jury.

The appeals were allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

In a murder appeal, the Court considered whether the trial judge improperly relied on the common sense inference on intent without first assessing all evidence bearing on the accused’s mental state.

The Court held that there was no legal error because the trial judge had reviewed the full evidentiary record relevant to intent, including alcohol consumption and surrounding circumstances, before applying the inference.

The Court also refused fresh psychiatric evidence, finding lack of due diligence and no reasonable possibility that the proposed evidence would have changed the verdict under the Palmer test.

The conviction for second degree murder therefore stood.