Pierre Poupart

The Crown appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal that had allowed the accused's appeal from convictions for sexual touching and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal had found that the trial judge erred in failing to take expert testimony into account.

A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge neither was mistaken about the purpose of the expert evidence nor abused his discretion in dealing with the expert's testimony.

The appeal was allowed, with three justices dissenting.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder.

At trial, the judge instructed the jury on the concept of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' by comparing it to the degree of certainty used in everyday activities, specifically using the example of checking the oil level in an automobile.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that using everyday examples to explain reasonable doubt is misleading and can lower the requisite standard of proof.

The Court found a reasonable likelihood that the jury misapprehended the standard of proof, allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial.

The Minister of Justice appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal regarding the surrender of a fugitive to a foreign state.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the dissenting judge in the court below.

The Court held that the Minister's surrender decision did not infringe the fugitive's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and restored the Superior Court's decision dismissing the application for habeas corpus.

The United States sought the extradition of the respondents for a plane hijacking allegedly committed in 1969.

At the time, hijacking was not a crime under Canadian law nor an extradition crime under the existing treaties, but it was later added to the Criminal Code and the 1976 extradition treaty.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the treaty applies to crimes committed before it came into force, a fugitive may only be extradited if the act was a crime recognized in Canada at the time it was committed.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought the extradition of the respondents for an aircraft hijacking alleged to have occurred in 1969.

The respondents returned to Canada in 1979, but the appellant did not request extradition until 1984.

The extradition judge granted a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, finding the delay violated the respondents' s. 7 rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that an extradition judge is not a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1), the Charter does not apply to the actions of foreign governments, and the mere surrender of a fugitive pursuant to a treaty does not violate the principles of fundamental justice.

The Government of Italy sought to extradite the respondent.

During the extradition hearing, the Extradition Judge refused to admit unsworn depositions taken in Italy.

The appellant applied for mandamus to compel the admission of the evidence, which was dismissed by the Federal Court Trial Division and the Federal Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that mandamus does not lie to review an evidentiary ruling where no question of jurisdiction is involved.

The Court also noted that while some of the unsworn depositions would be admissible because the deponents were warned of penal consequences for false testimony, mandamus was still unavailable.