Maureen J. McGuire

The appellant challenged convictions for sexual interference and sexual exploitation on the sole ground that the verdict was unreasonable.

The court held that the complainant's evidence, together with confirmatory admissions made during a police interview, provided an adequate evidentiary foundation for guilt.

The court agreed with the majority in the intermediate appellate court that the verdict was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction affirmed.

The respondents openly sold direct-to-home satellite systems with access cards that could decode United States satellite programming signals.

The police obtained and executed search warrants at the respondents' business premises, seizing extensive inventory and records.

The respondents successfully applied to quash the warrants and for the return of the seized property.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge properly heard the application rather than deferring to the trial court, correctly concluded that the affiant failed to make full, frank, and fair disclosure, and correctly determined that the alleged offence under s. 9(1)(c) of the Radiocommunication Act was not an offence known to law due to statutory ambiguity regarding foreign signals.

The appellant, a police officer convicted of criminal negligence causing death, appealed his conviction on the basis that his statement to a commanding officer was admitted into evidence without a voir dire.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that even assuming a voir dire should have been held, it was a proper case to apply the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown appealed as of right from a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, which had allowed the accused's appeal from a conviction for second degree murder based on the trial judge providing the jury with a transcript of the Crown's closing address.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal substantially for the dissenting reasons of Laskin J.A. in the court below, restoring the conviction.

The Crown applied to revoke the respondent's bail pending his appeal of a fraud conviction, alleging he breached a condition prohibiting him from engaging in non-personal financial transactions.

The respondent argued the application was procedurally flawed because no arrest warrant was issued under s. 679(6) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal held that an arrest warrant is unnecessary when the appellant is already in custody.

Finding reasonable grounds to believe the respondent breached his bail conditions by soliciting investments for a business, the court revoked his bail.

The Crown's application for a certificate of default was dismissed as premature pending the trial on the breach of recognizance charges.