Laura K. Stevens

The accused was convicted of kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and first-degree murder.

At trial, the judge rejected the accused's testimony, citing his 'very great motive to be untruthful' to secure an acquittal.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, finding this undermined the presumption of innocence.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, holding that while such language is concerning in isolation, the trial judge's reasons, read as a whole in the context of a trial where the accused challenged every witness's credibility based on their motives to lie, did not rely on an impermissible assumption.

The accused was subjected to excessive force by police during his arrest for impaired driving and flight from police, resulting in broken ribs and a punctured lung.

The trial judge found breaches of the accused's Charter rights and reduced his sentences to conditional discharges under s. 24(1).

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of excessive force but substituted the mandatory minimum fine for the impaired driving offence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal, holding that while state misconduct can be considered in sentencing, a sentence cannot be reduced below a statutory minimum absent a constitutional challenge to the minimum itself.

The appellant engaged in sexually explicit online chats with a 12-year-old girl, believing her to be 13 or 14.

He was acquitted at trial of luring a child under s. 172.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code because the trial judge found he did not intend to meet the complainant or carry out the secondary offence.

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

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the offence is an inchoate crime that does not require an intention to meet the victim or commit the secondary offence, but only the specific purpose of facilitating its commission.

The Crown appealed a majority decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal that overturned the respondent's convictions for first degree murder, aggravated sexual assault, and kidnapping.

The respondent moved to quash the appeal as of right, and the Crown brought a cross-motion for leave to appeal the refusal of the majority to apply the curative proviso.

The respondent withdrew the motion to quash.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that it is unnecessary for the Crown to seek leave to appeal the application of the curative proviso, as the provisions for taking account of the severity of errors are always intertwined with any error of law considered by the Court.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed as unnecessary.

The appellant was charged with sexual assault after a 14-year-old complainant became pregnant and had an abortion.

The police obtained a DNA warrant to seize a blood sample from the appellant to compare with the fetal tissue.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the DNA warrant provisions in the Criminal Code, arguing they violated his rights against unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the provisions, finding they strike an appropriate balance between the public interest in law enforcement and the individual's right to privacy and bodily integrity.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's reliance on the Crown's DNA expert evidence.

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.