Henri-Pierre La Brie

During a drug trafficking investigation, police discovered a loaded firearm in a hidden compartment of the respondent's vehicle while installing listening devices.

The trial judge found the search violated section 8 of the Charter but admitted the evidence under section 24(2), leading to a conviction for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision and excluded the evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the trial judge's section 24(2) analysis was entitled to deference and that applying the Grant framework supported admitting the evidence.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a person with a disability.

The complainant, who had a mild mental disability, gave inconsistent testimony, including conflicting statements about inventing the allegations.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, relying on the complainant's prior consistent statements to corroborate her testimony, without explaining how he resolved the inconsistencies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons explaining how he resolved the significant credibility issues and erred in using prior consistent statements to corroborate the complainant's testimony.

The Supreme Court of Canada considered four appeals involving offenders who had been detained for significant periods before being sentenced.

The trial judges imposed custodial sentences of less than two years and probation for three years, taking into account the pre-sentence custody.

In one case, the judge also ordered the offender to serve half his sentence before being eligible for parole.

The Court held that the term of imprisonment is the term imposed by the judge at the time of sentence, and pre-sentence custody is not part of the sentence but a factor taken into account.

Therefore, the sentences were less than two years, making the probation orders valid and the parole ineligibility order invalid.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault against a young child who attended a daycare operated by his wife.

The trial judge found the child's declarations reliable and rejected the accused's testimony, finding his explanations to be attempts at justification.

The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction, holding that the trial judge's reasons for rejecting the accused's testimony were insufficient.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the trial judge's reasons, viewed as a whole, adequately demonstrated the rationale behind her findings on credibility and reasonable doubt, and were sufficiently amenable to appellate review.