Jennifer Budgell

The accused, charged with serious firearms and drug trafficking offences, sought a bail review after being denied bail.

The court found that a newly proposed supervision plan, which included house arrest, three sureties pledging significant funds, and an ankle monitor, constituted a material change in circumstances.

Balancing the tertiary ground factors, the court concluded that the strict release plan was sufficient to maintain confidence in the administration of justice and granted bail.

The accused applied for judicial interim release.

The court considered the secondary ground under the Criminal Code and concluded detention remained necessary due to risks to public safety and to the accused.

The alleged offences arose in the context of ongoing gang violence and an investigation that remained active with suspects still at large.

The proposed surety, the accused’s grandmother, was found unable to adequately control the accused’s movements or mitigate the risk of violence or interference with the administration of justice.

Bail was denied.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of the deceased's wife, with whom the appellant was having an affair, who claimed the appellant confessed to the murder.

The appellant appealed his conviction on several grounds, including the trial judge's instructions on forensic testing, the admission of intercepted phone calls, the admission of video re-enactments and lay opinion evidence, the adequacy of the Vetrovec warning, and instructions on after-the-fact conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's rulings or jury instructions.

The appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted murder following a shooting.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the identification evidence of the surviving victim, who had a significant criminal record, gave inconsistent statements, and had a motive to lie.

The trial judge refused to give a Vetrovec warning regarding the victim's evidence, reasoning that such warnings do not apply to victims.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law, as a Vetrovec warning was mandatory given the witness's unsavoury character and the importance of his testimony.

The error could not be saved by the curative proviso, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter after stabbing his mother's abusive partner during an altercation.

He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on self-defence, specifically by failing to instruct that provoking an assault does not disqualify an accused from relying on self-defence under section 34(2) of the Criminal Code, and by failing to charge the jury under section 34(1).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury charge was fair and balanced, did not mislead the jury regarding provocation, and correctly focused on the broader self-defence provisions of section 34(2).

The appellant was convicted of first-degree murder after his common-law wife drowned when his truck went into a river.

The Crown alleged he staged the accident to collect life insurance.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misdirected the jury on his out-of-court statements, reasonable doubt, after-the-fact conduct, and the admission of photographs from an unrelated accident.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge committed reversible error by characterizing the appellant's exculpatory statements as 'excuses' that carried less weight than 'admissions', thereby reversing the burden of proof and denigrating the defence of accident.

The trial judge also erred in his instructions regarding the appellant's failure to contact the police.

The young person appealed a conviction, arguing that prior consistent statements were improperly admitted and that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no prejudice from the brief statements, which were not objected to at trial.

Although the trial judge's reasons were inadequate and conclusory, the Court held that the record as a whole supported the verdict, particularly given the young person's admission of guilt to witnesses whose evidence was accepted.

The appellants appealed their convictions.

The Court of Appeal found that the verdict was not unreasonable, as there was direct evidence from the complainant identifying one of the appellants, which was confirmed by independent evidence.

However, the Crown conceded that the appeal must be allowed based on the challenge for cause procedure.

The appeals were allowed, the convictions quashed, and a new trial ordered.