Maureen Forestell

The appellant appealed his convictions for historical sexual offences, including indecent assault, gross indecency, and sexual assault against two complainants.

He argued the trial judge erred in defining consent, instructing on criminal records, admitting similar fact evidence, and handling prior inconsistent statements.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Crown's concession that the conviction on one count was unreasonable and quashed it.

The court dismissed the remainder of the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's instructions or evidentiary rulings.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life.

He argued that the trial judge erred by precluding him from eliciting exculpatory parts of his statement and by permitting the Crown to cross-examine him on a previous shooting incident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's ruling did not prevent the appellant from leading the exculpatory parts in re-examination, and that the previous incident was relevant to his knowledge of the other men involved.

The court concluded that any prejudice was minimal and caused no substantial wrong.

The accused was charged with sexual offences against former students.

One of the complainants brought a civil action against the accused and the school board.

The accused sought production of the complainant's civil litigation file to assess his motive to fabricate or exaggerate the incidents of abuse.

The trial judge ordered the production of the file.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that solicitor-client privilege should only yield to an accused's right to make full answer and defence in rare circumstances where core issues going to guilt are involved and there is a genuine risk of wrongful conviction.

The Court established a two-stage 'innocence at stake' test, which was not met in this case.

The appellant appealed convictions for theft and possession of stolen property, arguing that the trial judge failed to address weaknesses in the identification evidence, improperly relied on witness sincerity instead of reliability, and returned an unreasonable verdict.

The court held that, although brief, the trial reasons disclosed no such errors.

It further held that the verdict was supported not only by eyewitness identification but also by circumstantial evidence placing the appellant at the scene at the relevant time.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her habeas corpus application with certiorari in aid following committal for trial on a charge of second degree murder.

She alleged denial of natural justice at the preliminary inquiry based on limits on cross-examination, continuation of the inquiry during her absence, inadequate assistance while unrepresented, and failure to conduct a fitness hearing during the inquiry.

The court held there was no denial of natural justice and no loss of jurisdiction, noting that irrelevant questioning was properly curtailed, witnesses heard in her absence were later recalled for cross-examination, and fitness had already been addressed.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a young offender, appealed his convictions for theft, break and enter, and mischief.

The first part of his statement to police was inadmissible due to non-compliance with s. 56 of the Young Offenders Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the second part of the statement was a continuation of the first, and the caution preceding it did not constitute a 'fresh start' because the effect of the first statement was not dispelled by appropriate language.

The appeal was allowed, convictions quashed, and acquittals entered.

The appellant was involved in a fight where a bystander was injured by a glass fragment from a bottle allegedly thrown by the appellant.

The appellant was charged with unlawfully causing bodily harm under s. 269 of the Criminal Code.

Prior to trial, the trial judge quashed the indictment, finding that s. 269 violated s. 7 of the Charter because it could include absolute liability offences.

The Court of Appeal overturned this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 269 requires an underlying offence with a constitutionally sufficient mental element and objective foresight of bodily harm, thereby satisfying the requirements of fundamental justice.