Louis Gélinas

The accused was convicted at trial of sexual assault with a weapon after penetrating the complainant with a bamboo dildo.

The Court of Appeal substituted a conviction for sexual assault simpliciter, finding the object was not a weapon.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the trial conviction.

The Court held that an object used in causing physical or psychological injury during a sexual assault constitutes a weapon under section 2 of the Criminal Code, even if the injury does not amount to bodily harm and the object was not specifically designed to cause injury.

The accused was convicted of second degree murder after shooting a criminal accomplice in the back of the head.

He claimed self-defence, testifying that he believed the victim and another accomplice were planning to kill him.

The trial judge left the defence to the jury but made errors in the charge.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the defence of self-defence lacked an 'air of reality' because there was no evidence upon which a reasonable jury could conclude that the accused reasonably believed he had no alternative but to kill the victim.

Therefore, the defence should not have been left to the jury, and the errors in the charge were harmless.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault with a weapon, procuring, and theft.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons of the majority in the Quebec Court of Appeal, with LeBel J. dissenting.