Marie Deschamps

The appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment, with an order delaying his parole eligibility for six years under s. 743.6 of the Criminal Code.

On appeal, he argued the delayed parole order required evidence of exceptional circumstances, advance notice from the Crown, and more detailed reasons.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 743.6 does not require exceptional circumstances or formal advance notice, but rather a two-step sentencing process prioritizing deterrence and denunciation.

The Court found the trial judge's reasons sufficient and the process procedurally fair.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of Manitoba's Gaming Control Local Option (VLT) Act, which allowed municipalities to hold binding plebiscites to prohibit video lottery terminals (VLTs).

Section 16 of the Act specifically deemed a prior non-binding plebiscite in the Town of Winkler to be binding, resulting in the termination of the appellants' VLT siteholder agreement.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the legislation was intra vires the province under its property and civil rights and local matters powers, and was not an unconstitutional encroachment on the federal criminal law power.

The Court also dismissed the appellants' Charter claims under ss. 2(b), 7, and 15(1), finding no violation of freedom of expression, liberty, or equality rights.

The Crown appealed as of right from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which had set aside the accused's convictions for second degree murder, aggravated assault, and break, enter and robbery on the basis that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for second degree murder, aggravated assault, and break, enter and robbery.

The appeal concerned the adequacy of the trial judge's charge to the jury on s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code and whether the Crown's closing address amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the charge was adequate as a whole and the Crown's remarks did not cause a miscarriage of justice.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal that allowed the accused's appeal from his conviction for sexual assault.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge did not err in finding the similar fact evidence inadmissible.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing that the trial judge erred in the jury charge regarding the effect of intoxication on the presumption of intent.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal as of right, endorsing the majority reasons of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The Court held that the trial judge adequately linked the evidence of intoxication to the possible application of the presumption of intent.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which upheld the dismissal of a third party claim on the basis of abuse of process.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, agreeing with the dissenting reasons of Goudge J.A. at the Court of Appeal that it was not an abuse of process to allow the appellant to bring the claim or require the realtors to defend it.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.