Michel Pennou

A prisoner appealed the setting aside of a stay entered after a trial judge found a section 7 breach arising from severe mistreatment by a state actor during transport custody.

The Court held that appellate review of section 24(1) remedies is highly deferential and intervention is justified only for legal error, reviewable factual error, or a clearly unjust result.

On the trial findings, the stay remained an available and proportionate remedy in exceptional circumstances where continuation would undermine confidence in the administration of justice.

The Court also held that, when setting aside a stay, an appellate court may in appropriate cases remit the matter for continuation of trial under Criminal Code sections 686(4) and 686(8).

The appellant appealed from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal that set aside his acquittal for extortion and entered a conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a brief oral judgment, dismissed the appeal.

The majority held that the trial judge drew the necessary findings from the evidence and that the substitution of a conviction for the acquittal was justified in the circumstances.

Two justices dissented and would have ordered a new trial.

The Crown appealed a sentence reduction entered by the intermediate appellate court after the accused had been convicted of sexually assaulting his young daughter and making, distributing, and possessing child pornography.

The Supreme Court held that appellate courts must show substantial deference to sentencing judges and may intervene only where a sentence is demonstrably unfit or affected by reviewable error.

It further held that a maximum sentence is not reserved for a hypothetical worst offence committed in the worst circumstances, but may be imposed where proportionality, gravity of the offence, and offender blameworthiness justify it.

The Court also held that a long-term offender supervision order serves a distinct protective function and must not be taken into account in determining the appropriate custodial term.

The trial sentence and long-term offender disposition were restored.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for theft, seeking to introduce fresh evidence that the respondent had committed new fraud offences while awaiting sentencing.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the fresh evidence was inadmissible because the Crown failed to exercise due diligence in adducing it at the sentencing hearing.

The Court also discussed the admissibility of uncharged offences at sentencing, with the majority holding that such evidence must comply with the procedural safeguards in section 725 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after shooting the victim in the back of the head while he slept.

At trial, the appellant argued self-defence based on an overwhelming fear of the victim, supported by psychiatric evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury on self-defence, the expert evidence, and character evidence, and erred by allowing the Crown to ask if he would submit to a blood test and a Crown psychiatric assessment.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while errors were made, they caused minimal prejudice and the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code applied because the evidence was overwhelming and the verdict would inevitably have been the same.