Leonard T. Doust

The appeal addressed the test for substantive equivalence under s. 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in minority language education.

The court held equivalence must be assessed holistically from the perspective of rights holders, including facilities, programming, and travel burdens, rather than formal cost parity.

The court restored a declaration that the minority-language educational experience was not equivalent to nearby majority-language alternatives, while leaving responsibility and remedy issues to later phases.

The court also upheld phased proceedings and restored special costs for the successful public interest litigants.

The appellant appealed his conviction for misappropriation of money held under direction, arguing that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to overturn his acquittal, that the mens rea for the offence was not established, that s. 686(4)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Code violated s. 7 of the Charter, and that he was entitled to be sentenced by the original trial judge.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the issue was a question of law, intentional misappropriation without mistake suffices for mens rea, the Charter was not violated, and sentencing by a new judge was permissible.

The appellant sought to set aside the renewal of an authorization to intercept private communications (a 'Wilson' application) to prevent the admission of wiretap evidence.

The petition was dismissed, and the Court of Appeal declined to hear an appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a review of an authorization is a criminal matter, that there is no need to reconsider Wilson v. The Queen, and that the Charter does not create a right to an interlocutory appeal where none exists in law.

The appellants were charged with second-degree murder.

After the jury was empanelled but before the appellants were put in the jury's charge and before any evidence was called, a juror was discharged pursuant to s. 573 of the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded with eleven jurors, and the appellants were convicted.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeals and ordered a new trial, holding that for the purposes of s. 573, a jury trial does not commence until the accused has been placed in charge of the jury.