Le Dain

The appellants were acquitted at trial of discharging a firearm with intent to avoid arrest after an exchange of gunfire with Forest Service officers.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal overturned the acquittals and ordered a new trial based on errors in the trial judge's jury directions regarding included offences.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court allowed the appeal and restored the acquittals.

The Court held that the interests of justice were best served by restoring the acquittals given the uncertainty concerning the rights and powers of the Forest Service officers at the time of the incident and the passage of over five years since the events occurred.

The appellant town appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal regarding a business tax assessment.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, restoring the Provincial Court's judgment that affirmed the Board of Revision's dismissal of the respondents' complaints.

The Court assumed, without deciding, that the Board had the required jurisdiction, as the issue was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court and it would not be in the interests of justice to delay the proceedings further.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal that allowed an appeal by the Crown and ordered a new trial, overturning a stay of prosecution.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that there was no basis in law for the stay of the prosecution.

The appellants and two accomplices were charged with first degree murder.

One accomplice pleaded guilty to conspiracy and testified for the Crown.

The appellants were convicted of second degree murder.

On appeal, they argued the trial judge erred in his instructions on section 21(2) of the Criminal Code, failed to warn the jury about the accomplice's guilty plea, and improperly excluded a second police statement.

The Supreme Court of Canada found that the trial judge did err on all three grounds.

However, the Court applied the curative proviso under section 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, concluding that despite the errors, the verdict would necessarily have been the same given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellants, Treaty Indians, were convicted of hunting wildlife with a spotlight on privately owned land without the owners' permission, contrary to the Saskatchewan Wildlife Act.

They appealed, arguing they had a right of access to the lands for hunting under the Wildlife Act, Treaty No. 6, or custom and usage, which would exempt them from prosecution under the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the Wildlife Act does not create a statutory right of access to private lands, no custom or usage was proven, and Treaty No. 6 does not grant a right to hunt on occupied private lands.

The appellant appealed his conviction on a charge of extortion, seeking to change his guilty plea.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the Quebec Court of Appeal which found no valid grounds to permit the change of plea.

The appellants sought to invalidate a municipal by-law authorizing the construction of a municipal building and a loan to pay for it, arguing that the municipality failed to observe the mandatory 15-day notice period before holding a poll.

The poll, which approved the by-law by a three-vote majority, was held only 10 days after notice was given.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the shortened delay could have affected the result of the vote given the narrow margin.

Consequently, the poll was invalidated and the by-law was declared inoperative for lacking the required voter approval.

Criminal appeal from conviction for conspiracy to obtain contributions for a governing political party through influence peddling.

The majority held that questioning prospective jurors in private after arraignment and plea, on grounds including possible partiality, formed part of the trial for purposes of s. 577(1) of the Criminal Code and violated the accused's right to be present.

The majority further held that this defect could not be cured by later challenges for cause or by the curative provisions dealing with jury irregularities, and that the process impermissibly intruded into the Code's exclusive scheme for determining juror impartiality.

A new trial was ordered, although the majority indicated agreement with the dissent's resolution of the remaining issues concerning the definition of “person”, the co-conspirators' hearsay exception, and good character instructions.

The Supreme Court of Canada delivered an oral judgment allowing the appeals and finding the impugned provisions of the Identification of Criminals Act and the Criminal Code to be constitutional.

The Court noted that the issue of retaining fingerprints after acquittal did not arise on the facts of these appeals.

Written reasons were to follow.

The appellants appealed from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal which allowed the Crown's appeals from their acquittals for possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking and ordered new trials.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in law by treating the Oliver case as establishing binding standards for substance analysis and by finding reasonable doubt after previously indicating satisfaction with the proof.

The accused was originally convicted of manslaughter.

The Crown appealed, and the Quebec Court of Appeal set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial on the original charge of second-degree murder.

The accused appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the accused's intent is a question of fact, and reinstated the manslaughter verdict, referring the case back to the Court of Appeal for the sentence appeal.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal regarding an inmate disciplinary court matter.

The Supreme Court of Canada quashed the appeal, finding that the issue had become moot due to three factors, two of which arose after leave to appeal was granted.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder as a party to the offence under the constructive murder provisions of the Criminal Code, after his brother beat a homeowner to death during a break and enter.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the constructive murder provision violated the Charter.

Applying its concurrent decision in R. v. Vaillancourt, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the constructive murder provision was inoperative as it violated the Charter.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant and an accomplice committed an armed robbery during which the accomplice shot and killed a client.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder under the constructive murder provisions of s. 213(d) of the Criminal Code, despite testifying he believed the gun was unloaded.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 213(d) violates sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter because it allows for a murder conviction without proof beyond a reasonable doubt of at least objective foreseeability of death.

The provision was not saved by section 1, and a new trial was ordered.

The respondent indecently assaulted a seven-year-old boy and, two minutes later, murdered him to prevent the child from telling his mother.

The jury convicted the respondent of first degree murder under s. 214(5)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal substituted a conviction for second degree murder, finding the murder did not occur 'while committing' the assault.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the first degree murder conviction, holding that 'while committing' does not require exact simultaneity, but rather that the underlying offence and the murder form part of one continuous sequence of events forming a single transaction.

The appellants, customs inspectors, challenged the selection of other inspectors for a newly created 'dog handler' function, arguing it constituted an appointment to a new position under the Public Service Employment Act requiring selection according to merit.

The appeal board agreed and revoked the appointments, but the Federal Court of Appeal set aside that decision, holding that a new position requires a formal administrative decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that a significant change in functions requiring special qualifications amounts to the creation of a new position, and thus the appointments were subject to the merit principle and the right of appeal.

The Director of Investigation and Research sought to intervene in a tariff application before the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities for New Brunswick.

The Board refused permission, finding the Director lacked statutory authority to intervene.

The Court of Queen's Bench dismissed an application for judicial review, but the Court of Appeal allowed it.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the Board's decision, relying on its concurrent judgment in a companion case involving Newfoundland Telephone Co.

The appellant, a public officer, sought to intervene in a hearing before a provincial administrative tribunal regarding an application by a provincial telephone company.

The tribunal permitted the intervention, but the appellate court overturned this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that a public officer requires statutory authority to intervene in an official capacity before an administrative tribunal.

The Court found that the governing statute explicitly limited the appellant's authority to intervene to federal boards, thereby denying authority to intervene before provincial boards.

The appellants, police officers, sought to quash a provincial Order in Council establishing a commission of inquiry into the alleged assault of a prisoner while in police custody.

They argued the inquiry was ultra vires the province as it intruded into federal jurisdiction over criminal law and procedure.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the province has the constitutional authority under s. 92(14) and s. 92(6) of the Constitution Act, 1867 to establish an inquiry to investigate and report on alleged wrongdoings by members of a provincial police force.

The inquiry's purpose was not to determine criminal responsibility but to investigate police misconduct that undermined the administration of justice.

The accused was arrested for murder and informed of his right to counsel.

He subsequently made an inculpatory statement to the police.

The trial judge excluded the statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding a violation of s. 10(b), and the accused was acquitted.

The Court of Appeal quashed the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that absent proof the accused did not understand his right to counsel, the onus is on him to prove he asked for the right and was denied.

As the police complied with s. 10(b) and the accused did not indicate a desire to exercise his right, no violation occurred.