82 total
Murder convictions upheld; trial judge's addendum to jury charge cured any defects in Crown's closing address.
The appellant was convicted of first-degree and second-degree murder.
He appealed, arguing that the Crown's closing address was improper, that opinion and hearsay evidence from a police agent was wrongly admitted, and that the Crown's theory of motive was based on speculation.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's addendum to the jury charge effectively cured any defects in the Crown's closing address, the police agent's evidence was necessary narrative, and the Crown's theory of motive was based on proper inferences from the evidence.
The court upheld the constitutional validity of the forfeiture provisions in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
The applicants, Fercan Developments Inc. and GRVN Group Inc., challenged the constitutional validity of sections 16 and 19 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which permit courts to order forfeiture of offence-related property.
The applicants raised three constitutional questions: whether the forfeiture provisions were ultra vires Parliament as relating to property and civil rights; whether they violated section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 by conferring jurisdiction on provincial courts; and whether they violated the Canadian Bill of Rights.
The court upheld the constitutional validity of all challenged provisions, finding that forfeiture is a valid exercise of Parliament's criminal law power, that the Ontario Court of Justice may constitutionally exercise forfeiture jurisdiction, and that procedural safeguards meet Bill of Rights requirements.
Bail review application dismissed; detention justified on secondary and tertiary grounds for attempted murder charges.
The applicant, charged with attempted murder and various firearm offences, sought release on bail pending trial.
The applicant allegedly shot the complainant in the neck, resulting in paralysis, while on bail for previous gun and drug charges.
The court found that while detention was not justified on the primary ground, it was justified on the secondary ground due to the strong Crown case and the applicant's previous breach of bail conditions.
The court also found detention justified on the tertiary ground to maintain confidence in the administration of justice given the gravity of the offence and the circumstances.
The bail review application was dismissed.