Richard A. Saull

The accused was charged with sexual assault.

The trial judge instructed the jury on reasonable doubt using the Lifchus model.

During deliberations, the jury asked for clarification on the difference between absolute certainty and balance of probabilities.

The trial judge repeated the original charge verbatim and stated that further explanation would lead to confusion.

The accused was convicted, but the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by failing to provide a responsive answer to the jury's question and by discouraging further questions, which raised a concern that the verdict was not based on a proper understanding of the standard of proof.

The appellant, an RCMP officer, shot and killed a detainee in a cell and was convicted of manslaughter.

The trial judge found the mandatory minimum four-year sentence under s. 236(a) of the Criminal Code constituted cruel and unusual punishment and granted a constitutional exemption, imposing a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal overturned this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the four-year sentence was not grossly disproportionate on the facts.

Furthermore, the Court ruled that constitutional exemptions are not an available remedy for mandatory minimum sentences that violate s. 12 of the Charter; such laws must be struck down under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The appellant, a teenager, was convicted of two counts of sexual assault against a child he was babysitting.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence, finding the complainant credible before assessing the appellant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge misapprehended the appellant's evidence and misapplied the burden of proof by shifting the onus to the accused after accepting the complainant's evidence.

The Crown brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence on appeal, seeking to introduce a transcript of a discussion between the trial judge and two jurors that occurred ten days after the accused was convicted of first degree murder.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the motion, holding that the admission of the transcript would violate the jury secrecy provisions under section 649 of the Criminal Code.

The Court noted that the discussion did not occur in open court with the accused or counsel present, and admitting the evidence would risk converting the appeal into an improper inquiry into jury room proceedings.