Michael Bates

The appellant was arrested and detained for longer than 24 hours before being brought before a justice for a bail hearing, in contravention of s. 503(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown conceded that the appellant's Charter rights were breached by the detention.

The trial judge found that the extended detention was attributable to a systemic and ongoing problem in the province that was not being satisfactorily addressed, and accordingly stayed the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal set aside the stay on the basis that it was an inappropriate individual remedy for a systemic Charter breach.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Court of Appeal had no basis to interfere with the trial judge's exercise of discretion and restored the stay of proceedings.

The accused appealed a sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge's interventions during cross-examination created unfairness and a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court held that the interventions raised serious concerns and should not be repeated.

However, the court was not persuaded that a miscarriage of justice was established.

It concluded that a new trial was not warranted and dismissed the appeal.

Two accused were convicted at trial of second degree murder in the death of a child and the provincial appellate court substituted first degree murder convictions under the unlawful confinement provision.

The Court confirmed that an appeal as of right after a substituted guilty verdict is limited to legal questions tied to that substituted verdict, while challenges to the affirmed lesser convictions require leave.

It also confirmed the provincial appellate court had jurisdiction over the Crown appeals from acquittals on first degree murder and upheld the substituted first degree murder verdicts.

The Court held that unlawful confinement was established in the parent-child context and that confinement and murder formed part of the same transaction.

The accused appealed a sexual assault conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable under s. 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

A majority of the provincial court of appeal upheld the conviction, with one dissenting judge finding appellate intervention warranted.

The Supreme Court held there was no illogical or irrational reasoning process by the trial judge and no basis to characterize the verdict as unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction remained in force.

The appellant challenged convictions for impaired driving causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit, arguing Charter breaches related to detention, counsel rights, and search and seizure required exclusion of breath sample evidence.

A majority held the appeal should be dismissed substantially for the reasons of the intermediate appellate judge.

The majority concluded admission of the breath sample evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Two judges would have allowed the appeal based on the cumulative effect of multiple breaches.

The Court dismissed the appeal from a second degree murder conviction.

The majority held the defence of provocation lacked an air of reality on the subjective element, particularly suddenness, and should not have been left to the jury, but affirmed the conviction.

A concurring judge would have held the defence was properly left to the jury, yet also dismissed the appeal on the Court of Appeal majority’s reasoning.

A criminal appeal challenged a conviction for possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition under s. 95 of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether the trial judge reasonably inferred the required knowledge element from circumstantial evidence.

The Court held the verdict was not unreasonable and agreed with the majority of the intermediate appellate court.

The conviction was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police executed a search warrant at his residence using an unannounced 'dynamic entry' by a tactical team.

The appellant argued the search violated his s. 8 Charter rights because the police used excessive force, failed to knock and announce, and did not have the warrant on their person upon entry.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the police had reasonable grounds to depart from the knock and announce principle due to concerns about officer safety and the destruction of evidence.

The Court also found that s. 29(1) of the Criminal Code was satisfied because the lead investigator, who arrived shortly after the tactical team, had the warrant in his possession.

The police suspected the appellant of operating an ecstasy lab and seized bags of garbage he had placed for collection at the rear of his property adjacent to a public alleyway.

Evidence from the garbage was used to obtain a search warrant for his home, leading to drug charges.

The appellant argued the taking of his garbage violated his s. 8 Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant had abandoned his privacy interest in the garbage when he placed it for collection at the edge of his property, accessible to the public.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed her conviction for first degree murder.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's instructions on planning and deliberation, including references to capacity, may have confused the jury regarding the role of the accused's intoxication.

The Court declined to apply the curative proviso and ordered a new trial.