J. M. Brian Coleman

The accused was convicted of three sexual offences against his stepdaughter.

The trial judge found the complainant credible and largely rejected the accused's evidence, but did not explicitly link each incident to a specific count or detail why the accused's denial failed to raise a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal set aside the convictions, finding the reasons insufficient.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, holding that a trial judge's reasons must be read in context and are sufficient if they show why the judge reached the decision, without needing to detail every step of the reasoning process.

The accused was charged with trafficking in a narcotic after selling marijuana to an undercover police officer, allegedly due to entrapment by a police informer.

The jury found unlawful entrapment, and the trial judge directed a stay of proceedings.

The Crown appealed, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, holding a stay was not an acquittal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that a trial judge has residual discretion to stay proceedings for abuse of process in the clearest of cases, and that such a stay is tantamount to a judgment or verdict of acquittal, thereby giving the Crown a right of appeal under s. 605(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.