Susan Kyle

The appellant appealed convictions for break and enter and possession of stolen property, arguing he was denied full answer and defence because he could not adduce medical evidence concerning a hypoglycaemic condition said to affect the voluntariness of an inculpatory statement.

He also argued that the condition impaired his ability to defend himself at trial and alleged trial judge bias.

The court held that neither the trial record nor the fresh evidence supported any claim that the appellant lacked an operating mind, could not participate meaningfully at trial, or that the statements were involuntary.

The findings of fact made on the voir dire were fully supported by the evidence, and the allegation of bias based on a single remark was without merit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused appealed convictions for multiple sexual assaults and sexual exploitation, arguing improper Crown cross-examination and inadequacy in the jury charge.

The court held that one line of cross-examination was unfair but caused no prejudice, and that the impugned cross-examination cumulatively did not deprive the accused of a fair trial.

The Crown separately appealed a conditional sentence as unfit for repeated sexual assaults against a vulnerable young complainant in a relationship of trust.

Although the court found an error in principle and concluded a conditional sentence should not have been imposed, it dismissed the sentence appeal after granting leave because the sentence had largely been served under strict conditions and incarceration at that stage would not be in the interests of justice.

A young person appealed a sexual assault conviction arising from a dispute over whether consent to sexual intercourse had been withdrawn.

The court held that the trial judge’s approach to the appellant’s testimony was fundamentally flawed because it was rejected in its totality on an unsupported view of inconsistency, without proper consideration of other evidence supporting that version of events.

The reasons also raised concern that different standards of scrutiny may have been applied to the accused’s and complainant’s evidence.

The appeal against conviction was allowed, the verdict was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

In light of that result, the court did not address the disposition appeal, while noting the Crown’s concession that the original disposition exceeded the statutory maximum under the Young Offenders Act.

The Crown appealed as of right from a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, which had allowed the accused's appeal from her manslaughter conviction and ordered a new trial based on errors in the jury charge regarding self-defence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing substantially with the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal, and confirmed the order for a new trial.