Ken Tjosvold is an Ontario lawyer with 4 court cases on record from 1993 to 1997.

What courts has Ken Tjosvold appeared in?

Ken Tjosvold has appeared in Supreme Court of Canada.

How many cases has Ken Tjosvold handled?

Ken Tjosvold has 4 cases on record from 1993 to 1997.

What judges has Ken Tjosvold appeared before?

Ken Tjosvold has most frequently appeared before Justice Major, Justice Cory, Justice Gonthier.

Ken Tjosvold | Lawyer

4 total

R. v. Bablitz, 1997 SCC 299, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1005

The appellant appealed her conviction for first degree murder.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal as of right, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that there was no error in the jury charge regarding evidence of planning and deliberation.

SCCNov 14, 1997

Respondent Counsel

R. v. McMaster, 1996 SCC 234

The appellants were convicted of second degree murder following a severe beating of the victim.

At trial, the judge found that the appellants had the capacity to form the intent to commit murder despite evidence of their intoxication.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge misdirected himself by focusing on the capacity to form intent rather than whether the appellants possessed the actual specific intent to kill, applying the newly established framework from R. v. Robinson.

SCCMar 21, 1996

Respondent Counsel

R. v. Richer, 1994 SCC 98, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 486

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder, arguing that the trial judge erred in the charge to the jury.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal that the jury charge, when read in its entirety, did not contain errors that would have misdirected the jury.

The Court found there was evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably reach the verdict.

SCCJun 17, 1994

Respondent Counsel

R. v. E. (A.W.), 1993 SCC 65

The accused was convicted by a jury of engaging in anal intercourse with his step-son.

While the accused's appeal was reserved, the trial judge submitted an unsolicited report to the Court of Appeal stating he would not have convicted the accused and considered the verdict unsafe.

The Court of Appeal relied on this report to quash the conviction and order a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that a Court of Appeal should not routinely request a report from a trial judge under s. 682(1) of the Criminal Code, and that the unsolicited report in this case was unauthorized and should not have been considered.

Without the report, there was ample evidence to support the jury's verdict, and the trial judge's charge to the jury was adequate.

Applicant Counsel