Edmonton

The appellant challenged a trial ruling under s. 12(1) of the Canada Evidence Act that permitted cross-examination on prior convictions after a Corbett application in a murder jury trial.

The Court clarified the Corbett framework, emphasizing that admissibility turns on whether convictions meaningfully support a credibility inference and whether prejudice, including moral and propensity prejudice, outweighs probative value.

The majority held the trial judge erred by admitting youth and certain violent convictions, but applied the curative proviso because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.

Concurring judges would have found no reviewable Corbett error and dismissed the appeal on that basis.

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction was upheld.

Three provincial appellants challenged the constitutionality of the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which established minimum national standards of greenhouse gas price stringency operating as a backstop to provincial pricing systems.

The courts below were divided, with the Saskatchewan and Ontario Courts of Appeal upholding the Act while the Alberta Court of Appeal struck it down.

A 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court held that the Act's pith and substance is the establishment of minimum national standards of greenhouse gas price stringency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that this matter falls within Parliament's jurisdiction under the national concern branch of the peace, order, and good government power.

The majority further held that the fuel and excess emissions charges are constitutionally valid regulatory charges rather than taxes.

The appeals by the Attorneys General of Saskatchewan and Ontario were dismissed and the appeal by the Attorney General of British Columbia was allowed, with Côté J. dissenting in part and Brown and Rowe JJ. fully dissenting.

The appeal considered whether police may conduct a warrantless penile swab as a search incident to arrest in a sexual assault investigation.

The majority held that such a search can be authorized at common law if police have reasonable grounds to believe it will reveal and preserve evidence of the offence and if it is carried out reasonably with safeguards protecting dignity and privacy.

Applying that framework, the Court found no breach of section 8 and upheld admission of the DNA evidence.

Concurring reasons would have found a section 8 breach but admitted the evidence under section 24(2).

Dissenting reasons would have excluded the evidence and ordered a new trial.

The appeal considered whether police may conduct a warrantless penile swab as a search incident to arrest in a sexual assault investigation.

The majority held that such a search can be authorized at common law if police have reasonable grounds to believe it will reveal and preserve evidence of the offence and if it is carried out reasonably with safeguards protecting dignity and privacy.

Applying that framework, the Court found no breach of section 8 and upheld admission of the DNA evidence.

Concurring reasons would have found a section 8 breach but admitted the evidence under section 24(2).

Dissenting reasons would have excluded the evidence and ordered a new trial.

Appeal decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2013 SCC 55, addressing the issues set out in the reasons and disposing of the appeal on the terms stated in the judgment.