David F. Hurley

Criminal appeal concerning a public corruption conviction under s. 121(1)(c) arising from a provincial employee’s wife being placed on a contractor’s payroll without performing work.

The Court held that the appeal had to be allowed because the trial judge’s persistent interference, jury charge errors, and failure to properly address character evidence deprived the accused of a fair trial.

The Court also provided extensive reasons on the elements of s. 121(1)(c), including the scope of “dealings with the government”, “benefit”, and the required mens rea.

The curative proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) was held unavailable.

The appellant was charged with breaking and entering, an indictable offence.

He elected to be tried by a magistrate.

The prosecution was conducted by a police officer who was not the informant.

The appellant was convicted and his appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the definition of 'prosecutor' in Part XXIV of the Criminal Code (which includes agents) does not apply to the trial of an indictable offence under Part XVI, even where the accused elects trial by magistrate.

A new trial was ordered.