M. David Gates

The accused was convicted of sexual assault after having intercourse with his intoxicated second cousin.

At trial, the accused claimed actual consent, while the complainant testified she was too drunk to remember but would not have consented.

The trial judge did not instruct the jury on the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, finding the defence had an 'air of reality'.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the combined evidence of the accused's belief in consent, the complainant's lack of memory, and the absence of violence provided sufficient plausible evidence to give the defence an air of reality, obligating the trial judge to put it to the jury even though it was not raised by defence counsel.

The police received an anonymous tip about a marihuana cultivation operation and conducted a warrantless perimeter search of the appellant's property, as well as a check of his computerized electrical consumption records.

Based on this information, they obtained a search warrant and discovered marihuana plants.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the warrantless perimeter search violated section 8 of the Charter, the check of the electrical records did not, as there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in those records.

The Court concluded that the search warrant was validly issued based on the tip and the electrical records, and that the evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada arguing that their right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated due to delays in the provision of legal aid.

The Court applied the principles from Askov and Morin, considering the special circumstances, complexity, and length of the cases.

The Court agreed with the majority of the Court of Appeal that there was no unreasonable delay and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant taxpayer incurred travel and entertainment expenses by hosting customers and employees at a fishing lodge and sought to deduct these expenses.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Federal Court of Appeal that the expenses were clearly precluded from deduction by section 18(1)(l)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

The appellant was stopped at a random roadside check stop.

A police officer shone a flashlight into the vehicle and saw an open gym bag.

The officer questioned the appellant about the bag's contents and subsequently searched it, finding narcotics.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant was arbitrarily detained at the check stop and that the subsequent questioning and search of the bag, without reasonable and probable grounds, constituted an unreasonable search under s. 8 of the Charter.

The Court concluded that admitting the conscriptive real evidence would render the trial unfair and bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s. 24(2).

The appeal was allowed and the acquittal restored.