Mario Longpré

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after intervening in a street altercation that ended in the victim's death.

At trial, the judge refused three requests to put the defence of provocation to the jury.

The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge erred, finding that a careful reading of the accused's testimony, in light of the evidence as a whole, sufficiently supported the inferences necessary for the defence of provocation to apply.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The dissent would have upheld the conviction, finding that neither the objective nor subjective elements of provocation met the air of reality test.

The accused was acquitted at trial after his statements were ruled inadmissible.

The Crown appealed, and the Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The accused appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in law by confusing the evidentiary rule relating to the admissibility of free and voluntary statements with the test for exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The order for a new trial was upheld.

The appellants were charged with conspiracy to traffic in narcotics based on intercepted communications.

The trial judge found errors in the supporting affidavit material and set aside the wiretap authorizations, leading to acquittals.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittals and ordered a new trial, finding that errors in the information presented to the authorizing judge do not lead to automatic vitiation of the authorization.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing that there was sufficient reliable information to support the authorization even after excluding the erroneous parts.