Martin D. Glazer

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder.

During deliberations, the jury was inadvertently provided with unedited transcripts containing submissions made in their absence regarding the admissibility of certain statements.

The trial judge refused to declare a mistrial, instead retrieving the transcripts and cautioning the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not err in law in refusing to declare a mistrial, and that the curative proviso analysis was not necessary as no error of law or miscarriage of justice occurred.

The Crown brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence on appeal, seeking to introduce a transcript of a discussion between the trial judge and two jurors that occurred ten days after the accused was convicted of first degree murder.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the motion, holding that the admission of the transcript would violate the jury secrecy provisions under section 649 of the Criminal Code.

The Court noted that the discussion did not occur in open court with the accused or counsel present, and admitting the evidence would risk converting the appeal into an improper inquiry into jury room proceedings.

The respondent, a lawyer, was convicted of six counts of breach of trust for converting trust money to his general account.

He was sentenced to two years' incarceration.

Prior to his appeal, Bill C-41 came into force, introducing the conditional sentencing regime.

The Court of Appeal reduced his sentence by one day and imposed a conditional sentence.

The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the new sentencing provisions, and that the Court of Appeal's imposition of a conditional sentence was not disproportionately lenient given the mitigating factors.

The appellant challenged a Court of Appeal order that, after allowing his appeal from an incest conviction, directed that a conviction be entered on a sexual assault count that had been disposed of at trial under the rule against multiple convictions.

The court held that, although s. 613(3) did not authorize substitution of the lesser conviction because the appeal on the incest count was allowed rather than dismissed, the appellate court retained broad supplementary authority under s. 613(8).

In the Kienapple context, the usual rule that an acquittal cannot be disturbed absent a Crown appeal yields to an exception because the counts are inextricably linked by the same delict.

The court further held that conditional stays, rather than acquittals, are the preferable mechanism for counts barred by the rule against multiple convictions.

The appeal was dismissed and the matter remitted to the trial judge for entry of conviction on the sexual assault charge and sentencing.

The appellant was convicted of break, enter and theft after police found recently stolen goods in his bedroom.

The appellant offered no explanation for his possession of the goods.

The trial judge convicted him based solely on the doctrine of recent possession, and the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court held that unexplained recent possession of stolen property permits, but does not mandate, an inference of guilt for theft or offences incidental thereto, such as break and enter.

The appeal was dismissed.