Kenneth G. Young

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking, arguing that the Crown was obliged to prove the existence of a search warrant.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the existence of the warrant was established in this case, meaning the issue of the burden of proof did not arise.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting his daughter.

At trial, the judge initially excluded evidence of alleged sexual misconduct occurring prior to May 1981, finding its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

However, after defence counsel's cross-examination of the complainant's mother left a false impression regarding a previous incest charge, the trial judge admitted the previously excluded evidence to correct the narrative.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge erred in admitting this evidence, as its prejudicial effect still outweighed its probative value, and a mistrial should have been declared instead.

Furthermore, the Court found the trial judge's jury charge regarding the properly admitted similar fact evidence from 1983 and 1985 was inadequate, as it failed to warn the jury against using the evidence to infer guilt based on bad character.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

Criminal appeal addressing whether cross-examination of an accused on prior convictions under s. 12(1) of the Canada Evidence Act infringes the right to a fair hearing under s. 11(d) of the Charter.

The majority held the provision is constitutionally valid because prior convictions are admissible on credibility, do not reverse the burden of proof, and can be controlled by limiting instructions, while also recognizing a judicial discretion to exclude such evidence in unusual cases where fairness would be undermined.

On the facts, the majority found no unfairness in admitting the accused's prior non-capital murder conviction given the centrality of credibility and the defence attack on the criminal records of Crown witnesses.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed, with a dissent concluding the prior murder conviction should have been excluded and a new trial ordered.