Sharon E. Lavine

The accused, a pediatrician, was charged with sexually assaulting four teenage female patients.

At trial, the defence sought to introduce expert psychiatric evidence that the perpetrator of such offences would belong to a narrow class of individuals (e.g., pedophiles or sexual psychopaths) and that the accused did not possess the characteristics of this class.

The trial judge excluded the evidence, but the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, establishing a four-part test for the admission of expert evidence: relevance, necessity in assisting the trier of fact, the absence of any exclusionary rule, and a properly qualified expert.

The Court held the psychiatric evidence was inadmissible as it lacked sufficient reliability and necessity to overcome the exclusionary rule against character evidence.

The appellant was charged with criminal negligence causing death.

After a series of pre-trial delays, the trial judge granted a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, finding a breach of the appellant's s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The Court of Appeal set aside the stay, finding the delay was not unreasonable.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, raising issues of both pre-trial and appellate delay.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the pre-trial delay was not unreasonable and that s. 11(b) does not apply to appellate delay, which must instead be addressed under s. 7 of the Charter.