James A. Bowron

The appellant was charged with hybrid offences more than six months after the alleged conduct.

The Crown elected to proceed summarily, but upon discovering the limitation period had expired, sought to re-elect to proceed by indictment.

The trial judge declared the information a nullity.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused's appeal, holding that while the six-month limitation period applies when the Crown elects to proceed summarily, the failure of the accused to consent to out-of-time summary proceedings renders the Crown's initial election a nullity.

The original information remains valid, allowing the Crown to proceed by indictment absent an abuse of process.

The appellant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm and robbery.

At trial, the key witness recanted her earlier videotaped police statement identifying the appellant as the assailant.

The trial judge admitted the out-of-court statement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, finding it met the criteria for necessity and reliability.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, confirming that the statement was properly admitted because the witness was available for cross-examination and the statement was taken under circumstances providing a comparable standard of reliability to in-court testimony.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault, break and enter, and possession of stolen property based on complex circumstantial evidence.

The trial judge delivered a bare guilty verdict and provided extensive written reasons 11 months later, after an appeal had been filed.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the written reasons should not have been considered on appeal, as the combination of the inordinate delay and other factors rebutted the presumption of judicial integrity, creating a reasonable apprehension that the reasons were an after-the-fact justification rather than the actual reasoning for the verdict.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of armed robbery based solely on the testimony of a disreputable accomplice.

The trial judge found independent evidence confirming the accomplice's account of the robbery, but none of it implicated the appellant.

The trial judge nonetheless convicted the appellant, finding the confirmatory evidence sufficient to restore faith in the accomplice's truthfulness.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that independent confirmatory evidence under the Vetrovec framework does not need to implicate the accused, even when the accused's participation is the only disputed issue.

The Crown appealed as of right from a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal which had overturned the respondents' manslaughter convictions.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeals, agreeing with the dissenting appellate judge that it was open to the trial judge to conclude that the severe assaults by the respondents caused the victim's death.

The convictions and sentences entered by the trial judge were restored.

The appellant, a paralegal, was convicted of fabricating court documents.

He sought a stay of proceedings on the basis that his lawyers were in a conflict of interest, having advised another client to report his forgery to the police while simultaneously representing him on unrelated criminal charges.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the law firm breached its duty of loyalty by acting adversely to a current client, a stay of proceedings was not warranted because the conflict did not affect the fairness of the trial or amount to an abuse of process.