Shaun Nakatsuru

The appellants, who were either charged or suspects in connection with an explosion and fire, were subpoenaed to testify at the preliminary inquiries of other accused persons separately charged with the same offence.

The appellants applied to quash the subpoenas, arguing that compelling them to testify would violate their right to silence under section 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellants were compellable witnesses and that section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act does not infringe section 7 of the Charter.

The Court found no evidence that the subpoenas were a form of pre-trial interrogation or otherwise objectionable, noting that the witnesses would be entitled to protections against self-incrimination at any subsequent proceedings against them.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault for allegedly burning her 3½-year-old granddaughter's face on a stove.

At trial, the unsworn child testified against the appellant, and both sides called expert witnesses regarding the burns, the child's memory, and child abuse.

The Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial, finding that while the child was properly permitted to testify, the trial judge erred by allowing an expert witness to testify that the child's behaviour indicated long-term abuse and to improperly comment on the child's credibility.

The Court also found errors in the Crown's cross-examination of a defence expert using unproven learned treatises.

The appellants were convicted of second degree murder.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of two unsavoury witnesses who had strong motivations to lie.

The trial judge failed to give a clear, sharp Vetrovec warning regarding their testimony, failed to instruct the jury on the limited use of a highly prejudicial letter written by one of the witnesses, and failed to instruct the jury on the use of prior inconsistent statements.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeals and ordered a new trial, finding that the cumulative effect of these errors could not be cured by the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, as there was a reasonable possibility the verdict would have been different but for the errors.

The appellant was convicted of unlawfully exposing goods on a municipal road allowance without lawful authority after selling T-shirts on a street corner.

The municipality had delegated licensing authority to the city, which only permitted owners or occupiers of abutting property to apply for a licence.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal, holding that the by-law was ultra vires the municipality because it was not specifically authorized by the provincial enabling legislation.

The Court found that the by-law's broad prohibition on exposing articles on sidewalks was not authorized by provisions relating to retail sales, public nuisances, or highway obstructions.