2 total
Crown appeal dismissed; new trial required due to trial judge's impermissible reliance on hearsay evidence.
The accused was convicted of second degree murder after the victim was found beaten to death.
At trial, the judge relied on an out-of-court statement made by the victim during a phone call to establish the timeline of events and the accused's exclusive opportunity to commit the murder.
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge impermissibly relied on the hearsay statement for the truth of its contents.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, confirming that the trial judge's reasons unambiguously relied on the out-of-court statement for its truth without a proper hearsay exception analysis, necessitating a new trial.
The accused was acquitted as slight driving deviations and transient physical signs raised reasonable doubt.
The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle on May 3, 2017.
The Crown alleged the accused operated a vehicle while impaired by alcohol based on observations of swerving driving behaviour and physical signs of impairment observed by police.
The defence argued the evidence was insufficient to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court found that while the accused had consumed alcohol and exhibited some signs consistent with impairment, the totality of evidence—including the absence of other driving impairment indicators, the reasonable explanation of the accused's condition as tiredness and shock at being awakened by police, and the rapid disappearance of apparent impairment signs—created a reasonable doubt.
The accused was acquitted.
