Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - SCC

The respondent was convicted of touching his six-year-old daughter for a sexual purpose.

The trial judge admitted the child's videotaped statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code, despite inconsistencies with her viva voce testimony on cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, holding that the contradicted portions of the videotape were inadmissible.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the strict adoption test for prior inconsistent statements does not apply to s. 715.1.

A videotaped statement is adopted if the child acknowledges making it and attempting to be truthful at the time.

Inconsistencies elicited during cross-examination go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, causing bodily harm while committing a sexual assault, and threatening to cause bodily harm.

He argued that the trial judge erred in permitting the Crown to cross-examine him on his criminal record.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion under the Corbett framework and gave careful and correct limiting instructions to the jury regarding the use of the prior convictions.

The accused appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal that set aside his acquittal and substituted a verdict of guilty.

The Crown brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted the motion, finding that the trial judge's acquittal was based solely on an unlawfully admitted medical report and that the Court of Appeal did not err in substituting a guilty verdict.

The Crown and the Attorney General of Canada applied to extend the stay of a previous Supreme Court of Canada judgment regarding the requirement of a warrant to effect an arrest in a dwelling.

The Court granted the motion, extending the stay to December 19, 1997, or until Bill C-16 receives Royal Assent, whichever occurs first.

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 appellant appealed as of right from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal that set aside his acquittal on a charge of sexual assault and ordered a new trial.

The issue concerned the reliability of a child witness's prior statements which were inconsistent with her testimony at trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the Court of Appeal.

The accused was convicted of second degree murder after the trial judge allowed the Crown to reopen its case to call a new witness after the defence had closed its case.

The trial judge also allowed the Crown to cross-examine the accused on her bad character, including her sexual relationship with one of the co-accused and the presence of stolen property in her house.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and directed a new trial, holding that the trial judge erred in allowing the Crown to reopen its case at the third stage of the trial, as it prejudiced the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The Court found that the character evidence was properly admitted as it was relevant to significant issues in the case.

The appellant assisted an undercover police officer in purchasing cocaine by locating a seller, negotiating the price, and passing the money and drugs between the parties.

He was acquitted of trafficking at trial, but the Court of Appeal entered a conviction.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the issue was whether a person who assists a purchaser of narcotics can be convicted of trafficking as a party under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Court held that while a mere purchaser cannot be convicted of trafficking, a person who acts as an agent for the purchaser or assists the purchaser in buying drugs aids and abets the seller by facilitating the transaction.

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault after having intercourse with his intoxicated second cousin.

At trial, the accused claimed actual consent, while the complainant testified she was too drunk to remember but would not have consented.

The trial judge did not instruct the jury on the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, finding the defence had an 'air of reality'.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the combined evidence of the accused's belief in consent, the complainant's lack of memory, and the absence of violence provided sufficient plausible evidence to give the defence an air of reality, obligating the trial judge to put it to the jury even though it was not raised by defence counsel.

The appellant was charged with sexual assault.

During the investigation, a police officer made a tape recording of an initial interview with the complainant but subsequently lost it.

The trial judge entered a stay of proceedings due to the Crown's failure to disclose the tape.

The Court of Appeal set aside the stay and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that where the Crown loses evidence, it must provide a satisfactory explanation.

If the explanation satisfies the court that the evidence was not destroyed or lost due to unacceptable negligence, the disclosure obligation is discharged, provided there is no abuse of process or actual prejudice to the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing there were errors in the trial judge's charge to the jury regarding planning and deliberation.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that even assuming there were errors in the charge, the evidence of planning and deliberation was so overwhelming that the result would inevitably have been the same.

The Court applied the curative proviso under section 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant broadcaster challenged an order made by a trial judge under s. 486(1) of the Criminal Code excluding the public and media from part of the sentencing proceedings of an accused who pleaded guilty to sexual offences.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while s. 486(1) infringes the freedom of the press guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Charter, it is saved under s. 1 as a reasonable limit to protect the proper administration of justice.

However, the Court found that the trial judge erred in exercising his discretion to exclude the public in this specific case, as there was insufficient evidence to support a concern for undue hardship to the victims or the accused.

The appeal was allowed and the exclusion order was quashed.

The respondents were issued speeding tickets under the New Brunswick Motor Vehicle Act.

They failed to pay the fines and did not appear in court, resulting in convictions without a trial pursuant to s. 16 of the Provincial Offences Procedure Act.

The respondents challenged the constitutionality of s. 16, arguing it infringed their right to be presumed innocent and to a fair hearing under s. 11(d) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 16 does not infringe s. 11(d), as the regulatory scheme provides sufficient safeguards and notice such that an accused's failure to act constitutes a valid waiver of their s. 11(d) rights.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing that the trial judge erred in the charge to the jury regarding self-defence and provocation.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal that the jury charge contained no reversible error.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

The trial judge found a warrantless search of the accused's car violated s. 8 of the Charter and excluded the evidence.

The Court of Appeal reversed this, admitting the evidence and entering a conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed the evidence was admissible under s. 24(2) as it was real, pre-existing evidence and the breach was not flagrant.

However, because the accused had not had the opportunity to put forward a defence at trial, the Court allowed the appeal in part to order a new trial rather than entering a conviction.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference.

The trial judge had erred by relying on the contents of the complainant's diary as corroboration of her testimony, even though the diary was not introduced into evidence.

The Court of Appeal applied the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code to uphold the convictions.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Court of Appeal's application of the proviso.

The appellants appealed their convictions for second degree murder and manslaughter.

The appeal concerned whether the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on self-defence and defence of another following a verbal threat made to an inmate.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal as of right, substantially for the reasons of the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

The Crown appealed a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal that allowed the accused's appeal from a conviction for second degree murder and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasons of the Court of Appeal.

The appellant was charged with rape.

During the preliminary inquiry, the presiding judge refused to allow the appellant to question the complainant about her sexual conduct with others during an in camera hearing under section 142 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant was committed for trial and sought to quash the committal by way of certiorari.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that certiorari to quash a committal for trial is only available for lack of jurisdiction, such as a complete denial of the right to cross-examine or call witnesses.

The judge's refusal to compel the complainant to testify at the in camera hearing was an exercise of discretion and did not amount to a denial of natural justice or a jurisdictional error.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of rape.

He appealed on the ground that the trial judge failed to put the defence of mistake of fact to the jury.

The appellant claimed the complainant consented, while the complainant testified she was raped over her protests and struggles.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a trial judge is only required to put a defence to the jury if there is some evidence that conveys a sense of reality to it.

In this case, the conflicting testimonies presented a simple issue of consent versus no consent, with no evidentiary basis to support a mistaken but honest belief in consent.