Richard Perras

The accused was originally convicted of manslaughter.

The Crown appealed, and the Quebec Court of Appeal set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial on the original charge of second-degree murder.

The accused appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the accused's intent is a question of fact, and reinstated the manslaughter verdict, referring the case back to the Court of Appeal for the sentence appeal.

The appellant appealed a majority judgment of the Court of Appeal for Quebec that had reversed his acquittal on a charge of breaking and entering.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal from the bench, agreeing with the dissenting reasons of Montgomery J.A. at the Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was set aside and the appellant's acquittal was restored.

The appellant was acquitted at trial on a charge of possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

The Court of Appeal reversed the acquittal.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal, finding that the trial judge's decision was based on his assessment of the evidence and no error in law was shown.

The respondent was convicted of failing to stop at the scene of an accident.

On appeal, the Superior Court reduced his sentence and ordered the Crown to pay costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal and ordered it to pay further costs.

The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing that at common law and under the Interpretation Act, the Crown cannot be ordered to pay costs.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, when read in context, implicitly bind Her Majesty and grant the courts broad discretion to award costs against the Crown in summary conviction appeals.