Kenneth MacKay

The appellant challenged a conviction entered after the Crown commenced indictment proceedings on charges identical to informations previously dismissed by a provincial court judge who had erroneously concluded he lacked jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court held that the earlier court had competent jurisdiction, the accused had been put in jeopardy once pleas were entered, and the dismissals remained effective unless rescinded, quashed, or reversed.

Applying the autrefois acquit principles discussed in R. v. Riddle, the Court concluded that the Crown could not ignore the prior dismissals and simply commence new proceedings.

The plea should have succeeded and the appeal was allowed.

The applicant, the accused, sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from a decision of the Saskatchewan courts.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed their convictions for fraud, arguing that the trial judge erred on questions of fact.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judgment, which had been confirmed by the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to comply with the terms of a probation order.

The appellant argued that the presiding judge did not personally explain the consequences of a breach as required by s. 663(4) of the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the requirements of s. 663(4)(a), (b), and (c) are administrative provisions that can be delegated once the probation order is made by the judge.

The Court found that the accused was properly advised of the consequences by the Deputy Clerk and knew of the consequences.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from a decision of the Saskatchewan courts.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.