Ritchie

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder.

The Court of Appeal found several errors of law in the trial judge's charge to the jury regarding the appellant's alibi, drunkenness, and identification evidence, but dismissed the appeal by applying the curative proviso in s. 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing that the application of the proviso was an error of law.

The Supreme Court held that the application of the proviso always involves a question of law and is reviewable.

However, the Court concluded that the Court of Appeal correctly applied the proviso, as the verdict would necessarily have been the same even if the errors had not occurred, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The appellant sought to enforce a Nova Scotia child maintenance order in British Columbia.

The respondent argued before the British Columbia Provincial Court that the child was no longer a child of the marriage.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a provincial court enforcing a maintenance order from a superior court of another province does not have jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of the order.

The power to vary, change, or revoke the order remains solely with the court of original jurisdiction.

The appellants were convicted of conspiracy to traffic in heroin.

The principal evidence against them was the testimony of an accomplice.

The trial judge instructed the jury on the danger of convicting on uncorroborated accomplice evidence and pointed out evidence capable of being corroborative.

The appellants appealed, arguing the supporting evidence was too remote.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, abrogating the strict and highly technical common law rules regarding accomplice corroboration derived from R. v. Baskerville.

The Court held that there is no special category for accomplices and that trial judges should use a common sense approach, giving a clear and sharp warning only when the credit of a particular witness warrants it.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from a decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The appellant, a chartered accountant, appealed a decision of the Court of Appeal for Quebec which held that no appeal lies from a Superior Court judge's approval of a search and seizure authorization issued by the Minister of National Revenue under the Income Tax Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, concluding that the judge's approval does not constitute a final judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure, as it merely permits the search and does not determine the rights of the parties or terminate a proceeding.

The Court also found that the Superior Court judge did not exceed his jurisdiction in granting the approval.

The appellants applied to strike out a writ of summons and statement of claim on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable claim and was scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious.

The chambers judge dismissed the application, and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower courts' decisions.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court judge's decision not to review his initial approval of an authorization to enter and seize under section 231(4) of the Income Tax Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, following its concurrent decision in Goodman v. Rompkey, which held that there is no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from such an approval or a revised approval.

The appellants challenged the validity of a 1908 surrender of Indian reserve lands by the Enoch Band.

At the surrender meeting, a majority of the eligible male members were present, and a majority of those present voted in favour of the surrender, but the assenting members did not constitute an absolute majority of all eligible male members of the band.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that under section 49(1) of the Indian Act, a valid surrender requires only that a majority of eligible members attend the meeting, and that a majority of those present assent to the surrender.

The appeal was dismissed.

The sixteen-year-old appellant was convicted of arson.

At trial, a first statement made to police was ruled inadmissible as the Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt.

A second statement, made two months later to the same officers, was admitted.

The appellant appealed, arguing the second statement was tainted by the oppressive atmosphere of the first.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that there is no presumption of tainting merely because a prior statement was ruled inadmissible.

The admissibility of the second statement depends on factual considerations, including the lapse of time and similarity of circumstances, which in this case supported its admission.

The CRTC appealed a Federal Court of Appeal decision that set aside its renewal of CTV's broadcasting licence.

The CRTC had imposed a condition requiring CTV to broadcast a specified number of hours of original new Canadian drama.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that the CRTC had jurisdiction to impose the condition but breached natural justice by not giving adequate notice of the specific condition.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the CRTC's appeal, holding that the CRTC had the jurisdiction to impose the condition under s. 17(1) of the Broadcasting Act and that there was no breach of natural justice, as CTV had sufficient notice that Canadian drama offerings would be discussed.

The Court also dismissed CTV's cross-appeal regarding the composition of the hearing panel.

The Crown charged the appellant with conspiracy to violate the Export and Import Permits Act, but the indictment omitted reference to the alleged violation of United States law.

The trial judge refused the Crown's motion to amend the indictment and subsequently dismissed the case for want of evidence.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and directed the trial to continue.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal, holding that the Court of Appeal lacked the authority to amend the indictment by substituting a different offence.

Furthermore, the Court held that an order for a new trial under s. 613(4) requires a full new trial, and it would be unjust to force the accused to proceed on an amended indictment, especially since the co-conspirator had been deported.

A motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from a decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal was dismissed.

A motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from a decision of the Saskatchewan courts was dismissed.

The appellant manufactured and sold desk trays under the name Starmark.

The respondents manufactured and sold identical trays made of lighter material.

The appellant brought an action for passing-off, which was dismissed at trial and on appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of fact that the appellant's trays had not acquired a secondary meaning or reputation in the market, and finding that the trial judge had not imposed an improper burden of proof on the appellant.

The accused was convicted of possessing an outboard motor knowing it was obtained by the commission of an indictable offence.

The Court of Appeal found the evidence only supported that the motor was derived indirectly from an offence, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial on an amended information.

The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing the Court of Appeal should have amended the information and affirmed the conviction.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an appellate court lacks the statutory basis to materially amend a charge and uphold a conviction, but may properly order a new trial on an amended information.

The appellant police association appealed a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal that dismissed an appeal from a Divisional Court decision quashing an arbitration award.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal from the bench, finding no reversible error in the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal regarding the arbitrator's jurisdiction over the dismissal of a probationary constable.

The appellant was laid off and subsequently received accumulated employer payments from a vacation pay trust fund.

An Unemployment Insurance Officer allocated these benefits as earnings, reducing the appellant's unemployment insurance benefits.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accumulated trust monies represented direct savings by the appellant, not vacation pay, as the funds were subject to a trust and had already been taxed.

The appeal was allowed and the decision of the Board of Referees was restored.

The appellant appealed a conviction for contempt of court arising from statements made at trial questioning the impartiality of the trial judge.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal.

The Court adopted the dissenting reasons of Mayrand J.A. in the Court of Appeal of Quebec, which found that the statements did not constitute contempt and the proper procedure was not followed.

The appellants appealed a decision of the provincial appellate court regarding a land title dispute involving adverse possession.

The trial judge who originally heard the case had retired before rendering a judgment, resulting in another judge making the decision based on the transcript.

The appellate court subsequently allowed an appeal from that decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal from the bench.

The Court held that the circumstances of the case did not justify any interference with the judgment of the appellate court.

The appellants appealed their convictions for fraud, arguing that the trial judge erred on questions of fact.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judgment, which had been confirmed by the Court of Appeal.