Kate Ker

The appellant was convicted of attempted murder following a second jury trial.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and eyewitness identification.

The trial judge erred in instructing the jury that they could infer guilt from a disbelieved alibi without independent evidence of fabrication.

The Court of Appeal applied the curative proviso to uphold the conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the erroneous alibi instruction was a serious error that provided a direct route to guilt, and the curative proviso could not be applied because it could not be said that any other reasonable jury would inevitably convict.

The accused was charged with possession of child pornography under s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

He challenged the constitutionality of the provision, arguing it violated his right to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the prohibition on possession of child pornography infringes s. 2(b), it is largely justified under s. 1 as a reasonable limit to protect children from harm.

However, the Court found the law overbroad in two peripheral applications: self-created expressive material held exclusively for personal use, and private recordings of lawful sexual activity created by or depicting the accused for private use.

The Court read in exceptions for these two categories and upheld the law, allowing the Crown's appeal and remitting the matter for trial.

The accused and a co-perpetrator participated in a violent beating that left the victim dead.

The accused stomped on the victim's head.

At trial, the Crown's medical expert initially testified the accused caused the death, but later agreed with the defence expert that the co-perpetrator caused the fatal injuries.

The Crown maintained its theory but also argued co-perpetrator liability.

The accused was convicted of second degree murder.

The Court of Appeal substituted a manslaughter conviction, finding the murder verdict unreasonable.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, reaffirming the Yebes test that the reasonableness of a verdict is a question of law.

The Court held that a properly instructed jury could reasonably have found the accused had the requisite intent for murder as a party to the offence, and restored the second degree murder conviction.