Edward Then

The appellant was convicted of two counts of second degree murder after raising the defence of insanity at trial.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, holding that it could not substitute a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity under s. 613(1)(d) of the Criminal Code because there was evidence to support the jury's rejection of the defence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, confirming that s. 613(1)(a) governs the determination of insanity issues on appeal and that an appellate court should not interfere with a jury's verdict unless it is unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.

The accused was arrested for murder and informed of his right to counsel.

He subsequently made an inculpatory statement to the police.

The trial judge excluded the statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding a violation of s. 10(b), and the accused was acquitted.

The Court of Appeal quashed the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that absent proof the accused did not understand his right to counsel, the onus is on him to prove he asked for the right and was denied.

As the police complied with s. 10(b) and the accused did not indicate a desire to exercise his right, no violation occurred.

The accused, a 16-year-old male, was convicted of second degree murder after fatally stabbing a man who allegedly made uninvited homosexual advances.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury that the 'ordinary person' in the objective test for provocation must be of the same age and sex as the accused.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that while age and sex may be relevant contextual factors for the jury to consider, it is not a mandatory requirement of law for the trial judge to specifically instruct the jury to ascribe the accused's age and sex to the ordinary person.

The appellant was acquitted at trial of bank robbery charges on the basis that his voluntary drug-induced intoxication caused an irresistible impulse, raising a reasonable doubt about specific intent.

The Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal and entered guilty verdicts.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that loss of self-control or irresistible impulse caused by voluntarily induced intoxication is not a defence to a criminal charge in Canada.

Appeal concerning corporate criminal liability for mens rea offences arising from collusive dredging tenders submitted to public authorities.

The Court confirmed that the identification doctrine attributes the acts and intent of a directing mind to the corporation where the directing mind acted within the assigned field of operation, was not acting totally in fraud of the corporation, and acted at least partly for the corporation's benefit.

The Court rejected proposed defences based on partial fraud on the corporation, partial personal benefit, and acting contrary to corporate instructions.

On the record, the directing minds pursued a scheme benefiting both themselves and their corporate employers, so the convictions were upheld.