M. Joyce DeWitt-Van Oosten

The appellant appealed his convictions for breaking and entering and sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the use of a third party suspect's criminal record.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

The majority held that while the trial judge erred in law by instructing the jury that the third party's criminal record could only be used to test credibility, the error did not occasion a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice under the curative proviso.

The dissenting justices would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the error was significant and the evidence against the accused was not overwhelming.

The appellant was arrested for murder, advised of his right to counsel, and spoke with his lawyer twice before being interviewed by police.

During the five-hour interview, the appellant repeatedly stated he had nothing to say and wished to speak to his lawyer again.

The police refused further consultation and continued questioning, eventually obtaining a confession.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that section 10(b) of the Charter does not mandate the presence of counsel throughout an interrogation, nor does it require police to provide multiple opportunities to consult counsel unless there are changed circumstances, such as new procedures, a change in jeopardy, or reason to believe the detainee did not understand their rights.

As no such circumstances existed, the appeal was dismissed.

The Crown alleged the respondent breached her conditional sentence by violating curfew and possessing stolen property.

At the breach hearing, the Crown relied solely on a supervisor's report that attached an unsigned police report summarizing witness statements, without including signed statements from the witnesses themselves.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that under s. 742.6(4) of the Criminal Code, the Crown may use documentary evidence to prove a breach, but the report must include signed witness statements if the supervisor lacks personal knowledge of the material facts.

Because the hearing judge had no admissible evidence to base the breach finding on, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of committing an indecent act in a public place after neighbours observed him masturbating in his illuminated living room through an uncovered window.

The trial judge found he had converted his living room into a public place.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal, holding that a private living room is not a 'public place' within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

The Court concluded that 'access' to a public place requires physical access, not merely visual access from the outside.