Michael F. Brown

The Crown appealed from a decision upholding a stay of proceedings granted after the accused's dismissal from employment.

The central issue was whether the circumstances amounted to a violation of the accused's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or an abuse of process justifying a stay.

The Court held that the governing authority was Vermette and found no Charter breach and no abuse of process on the facts.

The appeal was allowed, the judgments below were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The accused was convicted of failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

A new trial was ordered on appeal.

At the second trial, the Crown cross-examined the accused on inconsistencies between his current testimony and his testimony at the first trial to impeach his credibility.

The accused was convicted again, but the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction, holding that the cross-examination violated s. 13 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that using a prior inconsistent statement from a former proceeding solely to impugn the credibility of an accused does not incriminate that person and therefore does not violate s. 13.

The appellant and a co-accused were originally tried jointly and convicted of first degree murder.

A new trial was ordered, but prior to the second trial, the co-accused pleaded guilty to second degree murder and accepted a statement of facts indicating his footprints were at the scene.

At the appellant's second trial, the defence intended to call a footprint expert who had testified at the first trial that the footprints were not the co-accused's.

The trial judge permitted the Crown to cross-examine the defence expert on whether the co-accused's guilty plea and admission would change his opinion.

The defence consequently did not call the expert, and the appellant was convicted.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that an expert cannot be cross-examined on facts that are not and will become part of the admissible evidence.

The appellant, a professional football player, was cut from the respondent's team but continued to receive his guaranteed salary.

He subsequently signed a contract to play for another team in a different league without the respondent's permission.

When the new team folded, the appellant sued the respondent for the balance of his guaranteed salary.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's signing with another team constituted a breach of his contractual arrangement with the respondent, thereby relieving the respondent of any further obligation to pay the guaranteed salary.