Marie Henein

The appellant appealed a jury conviction for second degree murder and sought leave to appeal sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge wrongly excluded post-arrest utterances that were capable of supporting defence psychiatric evidence on cocaine intoxication and cocaine psychosis, and also erred in refusing to leave provocation with the jury because there was some evidence on which a properly instructed jury could find the partial defence.

The court rejected the argument that a later hospital statement was admissible to rebut recent fabrication, found no reversible error in the intoxication charge, and declined to interfere on motive.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered, making it unnecessary to address sentence.

The Crown appealed as of right from a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, which had allowed the accused's appeal from her manslaughter conviction and ordered a new trial based on errors in the jury charge regarding self-defence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing substantially with the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal, and confirmed the order for a new trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and unlawful confinement to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court dismissed the appeal from the bench, adopting the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal.

The appellants were charged with failing to comply with an administrative order issued under the Environmental Protection Act requiring them to clean up PCB contamination at an abandoned mine.

They did not appeal the order to the Environmental Appeal Board but attempted to collaterally attack its validity at their penal trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the order, as the legislature intended the specialized appeal board to be the exclusive forum for such challenges.