Court : Canada Supreme Court
The appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador - Court of Appeal, Number 12/76, 2013 NLCA 51 (CanLII), 2013 NLCA 51, dated August 5, 2013, was heard on March 21, 2014, and the Court on that day delivered the following judgment orally: ABELLA J. ” The critical issue at trial was whether Mr. Vokurka intentionally inflicted the victims injuries. The majority in the Court of Appeal found that the trial judges findings of fact, inferences drawn from those facts, and the finding of guilt were reasonable.The dissenting judge was of the view that the trial judge erred in failing to adequately consider and explain why, in her view, the œequally plausible explanation? supporting the defence of accident was not accepted. We do not agree, and agree instead with the majority that the trial judge adequately explained why he rejected the possibility of accident and found that the charge was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial judge set out the evide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Canada Supreme Court
The Chief Justice and LeBel, Abella, Cromwell, Karakatsanis and Wagner JJ. ” I. Introduction [1] The Supreme Court Act provides that three of the nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada must be appointed œfrom among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that Province?: R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, s. 6. This reference seeks our opinion on two aspects of the eligibility requirements for appointment to these three Quebec seats. [2] The first is whether a person who was at any time an advocate of at least 10 years standing at the Barreau du Qubec qualifies for appointment under s. 6 as being œfrom among the advocates of that Province?. If the answer to the first question is no, the second question arises. It is whether Parliament can enact legislation to make such a person eligible for appointment to one of the three Quebec seats on the Court. The answer to these questions ” which on their fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Canada Supreme Court
Wagner J. ” I. Introduction [1] In this appeal, the Court revisits the definition of the term œpunishment? in the context of s. 11(h) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The criminal law distinguishes between the sentence imposed on an offender and the conditions of the sentence. Changes to the conditions of a sentence, such as eligibility for parole, do not alter the sentence itself. This Court must decide whether retrospective changes to the conditions of a sentence may in some circumstances constitute œpunishment? in violation of the s. 11(h) right not to be punished twice for the same offence. [2] This appeal results from Parliaments conclusion that accelerated parole review, or APR, was not working. Established by legislation enacted in November 1992, APR was a simplified process that allowed first-time non-violent offenders to be considered for parole on the basis of a single question: Are there no reasonable grounds to believe that the offender, if ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Canada Supreme Court
The Chief Justice and Cromwell J. ” Introduction [1] Control over the sexual activity one engages in lies at the core of human dignity and autonomy (R. v. Ewanchuk, 1999 CanLII 711 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330, at para. 28). This principle underlies the offences of assault and sexual assault. Sexual activity without consent is a crime under the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. [2] In this case, the complainant consented to sexual activity with a condom to prevent conception. Unknown to her at the time, her partner, Mr. Hutchinson, poked holes in the condom and the complainant became pregnant. Mr. Hutchinson was charged with aggravated sexual assault. The complainant said that she did not consent to unprotected sex. The trial judge agreed and convicted Mr. Hutchinson of sexual assault 2011 NSSC 361 (CanLII), (2011 NSSC 361, 311 N.S.R. (2d) 1). The majority of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, per MacDonald C.J.N.S., upheld the conviction on the basis that condom protection was an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Canada Supreme Court
The appeal from the judgment of the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal, Number S1-CA-1261, 2013 PECA 11 (CanLII), 2013 PECA 11, dated August2,2013, was heard on February 21, 2014, and the Court on that day delivered the following judgment orally: The Chief Justice ” We agree with the conclusion reached by McQuaid J.A., dissenting in the Court of Appeal, that the trial judge did not err in his application of the burden f proof, and there was therefore no basis for appellate intervention. The appeal is allowed and the conviction restored....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Canada Supreme Court
The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 0801-0092-A, 2013 ABCA 257 (CanLII), 2013 ABCA 257, dated July 11, 2013, was heard on February 21, 2014, and the Court on that day delivered the following judgment orally: THE CHIEF JUSTICE ” On this appeal as of right, the appellant raises three questions of law on which a judge of the Alberta Court of Appeal dissented. Two of them can be dealt with summarily. First, the appellant submits that the trial judge was required as part of her instructions on reasonable doubt to specifically direct the jury that they had to acquit both accused if they could not decide which accused had committed the murder. Second, the appellant submits that the trial judge failed to properly explain to the jury the relationship between the intoxication defence and the mens rea required for aiding and abetting second degree murder. For the reasons given by Rowbotham J.A. in the Court of Appeal, we would not give effect to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Canada Supreme Court
Moldaver J. ” I. Introduction [1] This appeal provides the Court with an opportunity to revisit the law of abuse of process as it relates to state conduct that impinges on the integrity of the justice system but does not affect trial fairness ” sometimes referred to as the œresidual category? of cases for which a judicial stay of proceedings may be ordered. In particular, we are tasked with clarifying the approach to be followed when determining whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered where such conduct is uncovered. [2] As we shall see, the appellants, Antal Babos and Sergio Piccirilli, complain about three forms of state misconduct: (1) Attempts by the original provincial Crown Attorney to intimidate them into foregoing their right to a trial by threatening them with additional charges should they choose to plead not guilty; (2) Collusion on the part of two police officers to mislead the court about the seizure of a firearm from Mr. Baboss car; and (3) Impro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Canada Supreme Court
Moldaver J. ” Introduction [1] On January 25, 2005, the appellant, Ajitpal Singh Sekhon, was charged with unlawfully importing cocaine and unlawfully possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. He was arrested when he attempted to cross the border from Washington State into British Columbia. The key issue at trial was whether Mr. Sekhon knew about the cocaine that was secreted in the pickup truck he was driving. The trial judge found that he did. He based his decision in part on the testimony of an expert police witness who testified about the customs and practices of the drug trade. One aspect of the experts evidence strayed beyond the proper scope of expert testimony. As such, it was inadmissible and should not have been relied on by the trial judge. [2] The flawed testimony upon which the trial judge relied forms one sentence of a 16-page judgment that is otherwise flawless. In particular, the trial judge provided a long list of reasons for disbelieving the appellant an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Canada Supreme Court
The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 1201-0047-A, 2013 ABCA 219 (CanLII), 2013 ABCA 219, dated June14,2013, was heard on February 17, 2014, and the Court on that day delivered the following judgment orally: Moldaver J. ” We agree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeal. In particular, taking the record at its highest for the appellant, there was no evidence that the appellant took any reasonable steps to ascertain whether the complainant was consenting to sexual relations following her initial rejection of the appellants sexual advances. With respect, the trial judge erred in law in finding that there was some evidence that he had taken reasonable steps as required by s.273.2(b) of the Criminal Code.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Canada Supreme Court
Abella and Cromwell JJ. ” [1] The Public Service Labour Relations Board concluded that an employer was required to provide home contact information about bargaining unit members to the union which represents them because this information is needed by the union in order to carry out its representational duties. At the same time, however, the union must ensure that the information is kept secure and is used only for representational purposes. The main issue in this appeal is whether that decision was reasonable. We conclude that it was. Background [2] Elizabeth Bernard is the protagonist in a legal odyssey which has found its way through three administrative tribunal proceedings, two rounds of judicial review in the Federal Court of Appeal and now an appeal to this Court. She is a member of a bargaining unit in the federal public service, but does not belong to the union which has exclusive bargaining rights for her bargaining unit. In labour relations terms, this means that Ms. Be...
Tag this Judgment!