Tania Shapka

The appeal concerned whether police misconduct findings that were administratively expunged from an officer’s disciplinary record under provincial regulation remain subject to first party criminal disclosure.

The Court held that administrative expungement for police discipline purposes does not alter the constitutional disclosure regime, does not erase the underlying finding, and does not convert relevant misconduct records into third party records subject only to an O’Connor application.

Applying Stinchcombe, O’Connor and McNeil, the Court clarified that relevance is a low, utility-based threshold, that police must triage and transmit relevant misconduct information to the Crown, and that the Crown remains the ultimate arbiter of relevance with a duty to inquire when put on notice of potentially relevant information.

The appeal was dismissed, the motion to file further evidence was allowed, and solicitor-client costs were awarded to the accused against the police appellant.

The appellant was part of a group that entered an apartment and assaulted several occupants, one of whom died from a single stab wound.

The trial judge acquitted the appellant on the basis that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he inflicted the fatal stab wound.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and entered a conviction, holding that the trial judge erred in law by failing to assess the appellant's culpability as a co-principal to manslaughter.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the stabbing was not a discrete act outside the scope of the group attack.

The Court also clarified that joint/co-principal liability is not automatically eliminated merely because force was applied by only a single perpetrator, and that triers of fact should focus on whether an accused's actions were a significant contributing cause of death.

A young person charged under the Youth Criminal Justice Act appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, arguing that the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan should be lowered for youth justice court proceedings and that the delay of nearly 19 months in his case was unreasonable.

The majority held that the existing Jordan framework applies to youth proceedings without modification to the presumptive ceilings, but that the enhanced need for timeliness in youth matters must be considered within the below-ceiling test when assessing whether delay was markedly longer than it reasonably should have been.

After deducting two to three months of defence delay and approximately one month of delay from a discrete exceptional administrative event, the net delay fell below the 18-month ceiling and did not meet the test for a stay below the ceiling in this transitional case.

Four justices dissented, with three finding a separate 15-month ceiling should apply and one finding the full delay breached the 18-month ceiling without any deductions.