Robert L. Pollack

The appellant was charged with criminal negligence causing death after driving through a red light and striking another vehicle, resulting in a fatality.

The appellant had been drinking but showed little sign of impairment.

The trial judge acquitted the appellant, finding the conduct was not a marked departure from the norm, but made comments suggesting consequences and intention were irrelevant.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial based on these comments.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal, holding that the trial judge's finding of reasonable doubt was supported by the facts and the comments did not affect the outcome.

The respondent was convicted at trial of sexual assault upon a young girl.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed his appeal, finding that similar fact evidence from other children was inadmissible.

The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The majority of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the similar fact evidence was admissible to show a system adopted by the respondent and its probative force outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The appellant was acquitted at trial after the provincial court judge ruled that wiretap evidence obtained pursuant to superior court authorizations was inadmissible.

The trial judge found the authorizations were improperly granted based on cross-examination of the police officer, without opening the sealed packets.

The Court of Appeal reversed the acquittals.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a trial judge cannot collaterally attack a superior court authorization without examining the contents of the sealed packet, which an inferior court judge has no jurisdiction to open.