Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - SCC

The appellant elected to be tried by judge and jury for a narcotics offence but failed to appear for jury selection and the commencement of his trial.

The trial judge ruled that under s. 526.1 of the Criminal Code, the appellant lost his right to a jury trial because he did not have a legitimate excuse for his absence.

The appellant was convicted by a judge alone.

He appealed, arguing that s. 526.1 violated his right to a jury trial under s. 11(f) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

The majority held that while s. 526.1 infringes s. 11(f), it is a reasonable limit demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter because it protects the administration of justice and public respect for the criminal trial process.

The appellants appealed their conviction for attempting to obstruct justice.

They had wilfully counselled a witness to give false testimony in a pending trial, though the proposed false evidence could not have affected the outcome of the trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal as of right, adopting the reasons of the Chief Justice of Newfoundland.

The accused was charged with theft and his preliminary inquiry was scheduled 15 months after the charge was laid, largely to accommodate the investigating officer's schedule.

The accused brought an application before a superior court judge seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The superior court granted the stay, but the Court of Appeal set it aside.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the superior court properly exercised its jurisdiction to hear the application and that the 15-month delay was unreasonable, violating the accused's s. 11(b) rights.

The appellant was subjected to a warrantless "frisk" search for drugs based on an informant's tip.

The police found speed and then arrested the appellant, advising him of his right to counsel.

The trial judge acquitted the appellant, finding the search unreasonable under s. 8 of the Charter and excluding the evidence under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while the appellant was detained and his s. 10(b) right to counsel was violated by the delay in informing him, the search itself was reasonable under s. 8.

The Court further held that the real evidence obtained should not be excluded under s. 24(2) as its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking in narcotics, arguing the trial judge misdirected the jury on the burden of proof and credibility of defence witnesses.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while the trial judge's wording was less than ideal in some references, the charge as a whole adequately and properly instructed the jury on both issues.

The appellant sought extradition of two Canadian citizens to the United States for transnational heroin offences, although the respondents' personal acts occurred in Canada and could have been prosecuted domestically.

The Court held that extradition prima facie infringes s. 6(1) of the Charter, but that the infringement is justified under s. 1 because extradition serves pressing objectives of international crime suppression and bringing fugitives to justice.

Applying the Oakes framework flexibly, the majority concluded extradition was rationally connected to those objectives and impaired the right as little as reasonably possible in the context of transnational crime.

The appeals were allowed, the Court of Appeal judgments were reversed, and the extradition committals were restored.

The applicants, whose murder convictions were upheld on appeal, sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Counsel for one of the applicants argued that under section 45 of the Supreme Court Act, the Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the application without an oral hearing.

The Court held that it had jurisdiction to determine the application on the basis of written materials without an oral hearing, as section 45 was intended to establish a uniform procedure of general application for leave applications.

The appellant, an inmate, applied for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention in segregation.

The court of first instance dismissed the application without a hearing.

The Court of Appeal found the application disclosed an arguable case but, rather than remitting the matter, heard the merits with the appellant's participation and dismissed it.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the merits under the Criminal Code, and that remitting the matter would be a triumph of form over substance.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after the trial judge admitted the preliminary inquiry testimony of an alleged accomplice who refused to testify at trial, pursuant to s. 643(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 643(1) does not violate ss. 7 or 11(d) of the Charter, provided the accused had a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary inquiry.

However, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial because the trial judge failed to recognize his statutory discretion to exclude the evidence to ensure a fair trial, and erred by instructing the jury to treat the transcript exactly like live testimony without warning them of the dangers of accepting such evidence.

The appellant appealed as of right from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal that had allowed an appeal from his acquittal for second degree murder and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal, substantially for the reasons given by the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeal regarding the trial judge's charge to the jury on self-defence and excessive force.

The appellant appealed a conviction for the unlawful use of a credit card.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Quebec Court of Appeal that even if the initial possession of the credit card was innocent, the appellant subsequently chose to keep it wrongfully, making his possession unlawful prior to its use to obtain goods.

The appellant appealed as of right from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal allowing an appeal from a verdict of acquittal and ordering a new trial on charges of manslaughter following a mine accident.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in his instructions in law to the jury and that a new trial was properly ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for attempted murder, challenging the identification evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal from the bench, finding that the majority of the Court of Appeal did not err in their application of section 613(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

The appellants, masters of two Spanish fishing vessels, were acquitted at trial of illegally entering and fishing in Canadian fisheries waters, and one appellant was acquitted of obstructing a fisheries protection officer.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and entered convictions.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittals, holding that under s. 605(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, the Court of Appeal only had jurisdiction to interfere if the trial judge erred on a question of law alone.

The trial judge's reasonable doubt and findings of fact regarding intent to obstruct were not errors of law alone.

The appellant gave false evidence at a preliminary inquiry and was charged with perjury and obstructing justice.

At trial, he admitted to deliberately lying but claimed he had no intent to mislead the court, asserting he lied under compulsion due to death threats.

The trial judge acquitted him based on the defence of compulsion under s. 17 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal reversed the perjury acquittal, finding s. 17 inapplicable as the threats were not concomitant with the offence, and entered a conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed that s. 17 did not apply but found that the trial judge had not allowed the accused to complete his evidence regarding his lack of intent to mislead.

The appeals were allowed and a new trial was ordered on both counts.

The police obtained a defective warrant to search the appellant's house for drugs.

They executed the search using excessive force, breaking down the door with a battering ram without prior warning.

No drugs were found, but weapons were seized.

The trial judge excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter and acquitted the appellant.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal, holding that the search violated s. 8 of the Charter and that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the serious defects in the warrant and the excessive force used.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on charges of break, enter and theft.

The trial judge found that the respondents were arbitrarily detained contrary to s. 9 of the Charter and excluded the resulting evidence (statements, stolen goods, fingerprints) under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the exclusion.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that absent an error of law or unreasonable finding, it should not substitute its opinion for that of the courts below on a s. 24(2) application.

The appellants were arrested in the middle of the night for break and enter and advised of their right to counsel.

After unsuccessfully attempting to reach their lawyers by phone, they were placed in a police line-up where they were identified by witnesses.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the police violated the appellants' rights under s. 10(b) of the Charter by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to retain counsel and by failing to refrain from eliciting evidence before they had done so.

The Court concluded that the line-up evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed the Charter and its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, rendering it inadmissible under s. 24(2).

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder based in part on the testimony of an accomplice.

On appeal, the appellant argued that gaps in the trial transcript, including a portion of the judge's charge to the jury, constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant also argued that the trial judge failed to give a clear and sharp warning regarding the dangers of accepting the uncorroborated testimony of the accomplice.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the missing transcript portions did not create a serious possibility of error and that the trial judge's warning regarding the accomplice's testimony was sufficient under the circumstances.

The Crown commenced a civil action for forfeiture against the respondent corporation under the Customs Act for making false declarations.

The Crown sought to examine an officer of the respondent for discovery.

The respondent argued it was protected from discovery by common law privilege and section 11(c) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the common law privilege against self-incrimination in forfeiture actions was abrogated by the Canada Evidence Act and modern discovery rules.

Furthermore, the Court ruled that a corporation cannot be a 'witness' and therefore cannot claim the protection of section 11(c) of the Charter.

The Crown's appeal was allowed and the corporation was ordered to produce an officer for discovery.