Andrew Kerekes

The respondents, parents of a diabetic child, withheld his prescribed insulin due to their religious belief in faith healing, resulting in the child's death.

They were convicted of manslaughter by criminal negligence.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial due to errors in the jury charge regarding the burden of proof.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, affirming the order for a new trial.

The Court split on the appropriate test for criminal negligence under s. 202 of the Criminal Code, with half favouring an objective standard and half favouring a subjective standard requiring advertence to the risk.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on charges of break, enter and theft.

The trial judge found that the respondents were arbitrarily detained contrary to s. 9 of the Charter and excluded the resulting evidence (statements, stolen goods, fingerprints) under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the exclusion.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that absent an error of law or unreasonable finding, it should not substitute its opinion for that of the courts below on a s. 24(2) application.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal that allowed the Crown's appeal from an acquittal on a charge of conspiring to traffic in a controlled drug.

The trial judge had allowed a motion for non-suit.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal's conclusion and reasons that a new trial was required.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which quashed the respondent's conviction for attempting to break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The trial judge had been unable to find what specific indictable offence the respondent intended to commit.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by the Court of Appeal, affirming that proof of intent to commit a specific indictable offence is necessary for a conviction under section 306(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant and two co-accused pleaded guilty to attempted robbery while armed with a shotgun.

They were acquitted at trial of a second charge of using a firearm while attempting to commit an indictable offence, based on the rule against multiple convictions (the Kienapple principle).

The Court of Appeal reversed the acquittal.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the appellant argued he did not personally use the firearm and that the Kienapple principle barred the second conviction.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 21 of the Criminal Code applies to make a party liable under section 83, and that Parliament clearly intended section 83 to create a distinct offence with consecutive sentencing, thereby ousting the Kienapple principle.