Louis Belleau

The Crown appealed a Court of Appeal decision setting aside a sexual assault conviction and ordering a new trial.

The majority of the Supreme Court held that the trial judge's reasons, read in context, clearly established beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not subjectively consent to any sexual activity with the respondent.

The Court found that the circumstantial evidence — including the complainant's emotional state, her attempts to leave, and her reaction upon recovering from memory blackouts — reasonably permitted only one inference: absence of consent.

The majority agreed with the dissenting judge at the Court of Appeal and restored the conviction.

The sentence appeal was remanded back to the Court of Appeal.

The Court considered whether section 27 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act removes Crown immunity from discovery when the Crown is not a party.

It held that immunity can be displaced only by clear statutory language, and section 27 applies only to proceedings against the Crown.

Because neither the Crown nor the chief investigator was a party, the investigator could refuse discovery.

The appeal was allowed and the respondents’ discovery motion was dismissed with costs throughout.

The accused was arrested without a warrant and found in possession of crack cocaine.

The arresting officer did not investigate the accused's claim of mistaken identity at the time of the arrest.

The trial judge acquitted the accused, finding the officer lacked objective grounds for the arrest and excluded the evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the trial judge did not impose a more onerous standard for reasonable grounds under s. 495 of the Criminal Code, but rather based her conclusion on the inconsistent and contradictory evidence of the arresting officer.

The accused were convicted of first degree murder and manslaughter following a shooting related to a drug debt.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and an out-of-court statement made by the deceased shortly before his death expressing fear of one of the accused.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial based on errors in the trial judge's jury instructions regarding circumstantial evidence, reasonable doubt, and the limiting instruction for the hearsay statement.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, finding that the jury instructions on the burden of proof were adequate when read as a whole and that the deceased's statement was properly admitted under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule to establish his fear and rebut the defence's theory of alternative suspects.

The appellants were convicted of first degree murder.

Duguay later pleaded guilty to manslaughter after a new trial was ordered.

A public inquiry subsequently revealed that the Crown and police failed to disclose significant relevant evidence to the defence at the original trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Crown's failure to disclose this evidence infringed the appellants' right to make full answer and defence under s. 7 of the Charter.

The Court clarified the test from Dixon for assessing the impact of non-disclosure on the verdict and trial fairness, and adapted it for cases involving guilty pleas.

Taillefer's conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

Duguay was permitted to withdraw his guilty plea, and a stay of proceedings was entered due to the significant time he had already served.