Richard A. Stroppel

The appellant appealed her conviction for first degree murder.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal as of right, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that there was no error in the jury charge regarding evidence of planning and deliberation.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed decisions finding that section 51(e) of the Canada Elections Act, which disqualified prisoners from voting, was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the provision contravened section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court found that the provision was drawn too broadly and failed the minimal impairment component of the proportionality test under section 1 of the Charter.

The accused was acquitted at trial of dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm after a fatal collision at an intersection.

The trial judge found the accused negligent but lacking the necessary criminal element.

The Crown appealed, and the Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal, finding the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider all relevant evidence and the totality of the driving.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the accused's appeal and restored the acquittal, holding that the trial judge's assessment of the facts and evidence did not constitute an error of law, and the Court of Appeal improperly interfered with factual findings.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder based on circumstantial evidence and a recorded conversation with a friend who visited him in custody.

The friend, acting at the behest of the police and wearing a body pack, elicited statements from the appellant that undermined his lawyer's advice to remain silent.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the friend was acting as a state agent and that the elicitation of the statements violated the appellant's right to silence under section 7 of the Charter.

The Court concluded that the admission of the conscripted evidence would render the trial unfair and bring the administration of justice into disrepute under section 24(2), and declined to apply the curative proviso, ordering a new trial.

The appellant was arrested for murder and informed of his right to counsel.

During questioning, he asked about Legal Aid and expressed concern that he could not afford a lawyer.

The police officer did not inform him of the availability of Legal Aid or duty counsel at that time, and the appellant subsequently made incriminating statements.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the police have a duty under s. 10(b) of the Charter to inform a detainee of the existence and availability of Legal Aid and duty counsel, especially when the detainee expresses concern about affordability.

The Court found that the appellant's rights were violated, he did not validly waive his right to counsel, and the statements must be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The acquittal was restored.