Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - SCC

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a decision requiring Canadian authorities to obtain a search warrant before sending a letter of request to Swiss authorities for the search and seizure of the respondent's bank records.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the sending of the letter of request did not violate section 8 of the Charter.

The majority found that the respondent did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in foreign bank records that would require Canadian prior judicial authorization, as the search was executed by Swiss authorities under Swiss law.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal that dismissed its application to quash the accused's appeal of a pre-trial decision removing his counsel for conflict of interest.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that a decision to remove counsel does not go to jurisdiction and must be reviewed after the trial through the normal appeal process set out in the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed as of right from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissing his appeal from a conviction for first degree murder.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal, finding that the trial judge adequately explained the defence position to the jury.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal finding him guilty of sexual assault involving mentally handicapped persons.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that even though section 273.1 of the Criminal Code was not in force at the time of the alleged acts, the appellant must be convicted based on the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for break and enter and theft, arguing that the verdict could not reasonably be supported by the identification evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the dissenting reasons of Rowles J.A. at the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and an acquittal was directed.

The appellants were charged with failing to comply with an administrative order issued under the Environmental Protection Act requiring them to clean up PCB contamination at an abandoned mine.

They did not appeal the order to the Environmental Appeal Board but attempted to collaterally attack its validity at their penal trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the order, as the legislature intended the specialized appeal board to be the exclusive forum for such challenges.

The respondent company operated a sand and gravel mine and was ordered by a development officer under the Planning Act to stop mining on a specific parcel of land and restore it.

The respondent did not appeal the order to the Development Appeal Board but failed to restore the site.

When charged with failing to comply with the order, the respondent argued by way of defence that it had a valid non-conforming use.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to determine the merits of the administrative order in a penal proceeding, as the Planning Act provided a comprehensive appeal mechanism that the respondent failed to utilize.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction restored.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving causing death.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that driving at night, more than 20 kilometers over the speed limit, on a curve, and totally on the wrong side of the road constituted a marked departure from the norm.

The matter was remitted to the trial judge for sentencing.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge's guilty verdict was unreasonable.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal as of right, finding that the verdict reached by the trial judge was not unreasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

The accused was charged with the murder of his estranged wife.

The trial judge directed a verdict of acquittal because the forensic evidence failed to establish definitively that the deceased had died from foul play, creating a gap in the evidence regarding causation.

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

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of motive, opportunity, and premature knowledge of the manner of death from which a properly instructed jury could infer guilt, and that the trial judge erred in weighing the evidence and directing an acquittal.

The appellants picketed a police station carrying placards alleging a police officer allowed or participated in the sexual abuse of children.

They were convicted of defamatory libel under s. 300 of the Criminal Code.

They appealed, arguing the defamatory libel provisions infringed their freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and were unconstitutionally vague under s. 7.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the provisions infringe s. 2(b), they are justified under s. 1, subject to the severance of a portion of s. 299(c).

The Court found the protection of reputation to be a pressing and substantial objective, and that the provisions were rationally connected and minimally impairing, given the requirement of subjective knowledge of falsity and intent to defame.

The appeals were dismissed and the convictions upheld.

The Crown appealed a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal that had overturned the accused's convictions for indecent assault and gross indecency and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the Court of Appeal erred in concluding the trial judge misapprehended the evidence.

The Court held there was sufficient evidence in the complainant's testimony to support the finding of guilt, which turned largely on credibility assessments properly made by the trial judge.

The conviction was restored.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault against two different victims.

The Crown inadvertently failed to disclose a witness statement to the defence.

Applying the principles from R. v. Dixon, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the undisclosed statement did not affect the reliability of the conviction for the first assault.

However, for the second assault, the statement contained exculpatory evidence that could have raised a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed in part, and a new trial was ordered for the second assault.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault.

The Crown failed to disclose a statement made by an eyewitness, though a summary was included in police reports provided to the defence.

The Court of Appeal found that defence counsel had exercised due diligence in pursuing disclosure.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the undisclosed statement could have affected the defence's strategy, such as the decision not to call evidence.

The Court concluded that the non-disclosure affected the fairness of the trial process and impaired the appellant's right to make full answer and defence.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder.

At trial, the judge instructed the jury on the concept of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' by comparing it to the degree of certainty used in everyday activities, specifically using the example of checking the oil level in an automobile.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that using everyday examples to explain reasonable doubt is misleading and can lower the requisite standard of proof.

The Court found a reasonable likelihood that the jury misapprehended the standard of proof, allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial.

The Attorneys General of Alberta, Manitoba, and Prince Edward Island sought declarations validating past decisions of their provincial courts following a Supreme Court judgment finding the judges lacked independence.

The Court held that the doctrine of necessity applied, rendering past decisions valid without the need for declarations.

The Court also suspended the requirement for an independent judicial remuneration process for one year to allow governments time to comply.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on charges of aggravated assault and committing an offence while masked.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the trial judge took into account all the evidence presented and made no error of law in concluding he was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt.

The appellant appealed a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which had allowed the Crown's appeal from an acquittal and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal had ruled that the trial judge erred in finding that the interception of private communications was unlawful and excluding the evidence.

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

The appellants, the owner and manager of a tavern, were charged with allowing indecent performances under s. 167(1) of the Criminal Code after undercover police observed lap dancing involving sexual contact between nude dancers and patrons.

The trial judge acquitted both, finding the performances were not indecent and the owner lacked mens rea.

The Court of Appeal overturned the acquittals.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the performances were indecent as they exceeded the community standard of tolerance due to the degrading nature of the sexual contact in a public tavern.

The manager's conviction was upheld.

However, the Court restored the owner's acquittal, finding the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the trial judge's factual finding that the owner lacked the requisite mens rea because he had reasonably delegated entertainment responsibilities to the manager.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing that the trial judge erred by not leaving manslaughter as an available verdict for the jury.

The Court of Appeal had allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's cross-appeal and dismissed the accused's appeal, restoring the trial conviction.

The majority held that based on the totality of the evidence, the trial judge did not err in refusing to leave manslaughter with the jury.