Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - SCC

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 appellant appealed her conviction for welfare fraud, which arose from the non-reporting of a change in her marital status.

At trial, the defence presented evidence regarding a traditional African marriage, which was rejected.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal as of right, finding no error in the reasons and conclusion of the majority of the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed as of right from a judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, which had allowed the Crown's appeal and overturned her acquittal for being an accessory after the fact.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that it is not necessary to convict a principal in order to convict an accessory.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the jury verdict was unreasonable based on the evidence of an accomplice.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge gave a clear and correct warning to the jury regarding the accomplice's evidence, which was also supported by cogent corroborating evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal that reversed a stay of proceedings entered by the trial judge due to unreasonable delay.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a majority oral judgment, allowed the appeal and restored the stay.

The majority found that the trial judge carefully considered all relevant factors from Askov and Morin and made no error in exercising his discretion.

The dissenting justices would have dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in dealing with the period of delay and prejudice.

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 appellant was charged with first degree murder and planned to testify in his own defence.

At the close of the Crown's case, defence counsel made a Corbett application to exclude the appellant's lengthy criminal record.

The trial judge refused to rule on the application until after the appellant had testified in chief, prompting the appellant to elect not to testify.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a Corbett application must be decided immediately after the close of the Crown's case to allow the accused to make an informed decision about whether to testify.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

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 was arrested for possession of narcotics.

Hours later, an RCMP officer conducted a warrantless inventory search of the appellant's impounded car pursuant to police policy, discovering cash and cocaine.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the search violated section 8 of the Charter because an inventory search is not a valid objective of the common law power of search incident to arrest, and thus the search was not authorized by law.

However, applying the Collins test under section 24(2) of the Charter, the Court concluded that the non-conscriptive evidence should not be excluded, as the breach was not serious and exclusion would have a more detrimental impact on the administration of justice.

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 appellant appealed his conviction for misappropriation of money held under direction, arguing that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to overturn his acquittal, that the mens rea for the offence was not established, that s. 686(4)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Code violated s. 7 of the Charter, and that he was entitled to be sentenced by the original trial judge.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the issue was a question of law, intentional misappropriation without mistake suffices for mens rea, the Charter was not violated, and sentencing by a new judge was permissible.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario which had overturned a stay of proceedings granted by the trial judge.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasons of the Court of Appeal that the delay was not occasioned by a scarcity of judicial resources and did not warrant a stay.

The appellant appealed as of right from a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal that allowed the Crown's appeal from his acquittal for possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking.

The sole issue was the admissibility of a telephone conversation between an unidentified person and a police officer arranging a drug delivery.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the conversation was not hearsay because it was tendered as a statement of intention or to establish the transaction, rather than for the truth of its contents.

The Court confirmed the order for a new trial.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the admissibility of telephone conversations.

The Court assumed a section 8 Charter infringement but held that the three telephone calls were admissible under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing that the trial judge erred in permitting the Crown to introduce rebuttal evidence relating to an alibi defence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the rebuttal evidence was properly admitted as it went to the context and essential fabric of the alibi defence, and the Crown could not have known in advance what testimony the appellant would give.

The Court further held that even if part of the rebuttal evidence was improperly admitted, the curative proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code would apply given the overwhelming evidence against the appellant.