Marvin R. Bloos

The appellant was charged with dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm, and impaired driving.

The Crown and the appellant entered into a plea agreement for a lesser charge of careless driving.

However, the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Criminal Justice Division subsequently repudiated the agreement, concluding it was contrary to the interests of justice.

The appellant alleged this repudiation breached her s. 7 Charter rights as an abuse of process.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the repudiation of a plea agreement is an act of prosecutorial discretion, reviewable only for abuse of process.

Finding no evidence of bad faith, improper motive, or trial unfairness, the Court dismissed the appeal.

The appellant shot and killed a police officer during a struggle following a domestic dispute.

At trial, he admitted to the shooting but claimed it was accidental and lacked the intent for murder.

The trial judge instructed the jury on the Crown's theory, mentioning the appellant's failure to check on the officer before threatening suicide.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by suggesting the jury could infer intent from post-offence conduct.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the jury charge, read as a whole, did not contain an error of law.

The Court further held that even if an error existed, the curative proviso would apply as no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred.

The appellant was convicted of armed robbery based solely on the testimony of a disreputable accomplice.

The trial judge found independent evidence confirming the accomplice's account of the robbery, but none of it implicated the appellant.

The trial judge nonetheless convicted the appellant, finding the confirmatory evidence sufficient to restore faith in the accomplice's truthfulness.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that independent confirmatory evidence under the Vetrovec framework does not need to implicate the accused, even when the accused's participation is the only disputed issue.