Canada's Court: Oral Arguments from the SCC
Canada's Court is a podcast that presents selected oral arguments from the Supreme Court of Canada. It is produced by the Criminal Lawyers' Association and distributed on major podcast platforms. Each episode highlights a hearing, with full webcast video available from the Supreme Court of Canada website. The Supreme Court of Canada is not affiliated with the podcast and did not produce or participate in its creation.
Episodes
Episode 4: His Majesty the King v. Robert Joseph DeSutter
The respondent was charged with multiple counts of sexual offences in relation to three separate complainants, and in addition was charged with one count of simple assault. At trial, he was found guilty of the assault, but acquitted of the sexual offences. The trial judge found there was reasonable doubt on whether the acts were for a sexual purpose, and whe
Episode 3: His Majesty the King v. Robert Vrbanic, et al.
The two respondents, jointly tried for a number of drug trafficking and related charges, argued that the delay in their case was unreasonable. While both the Crown and Defence agreed at trial that the delay was over the 18-month presumptive Jordan ceiling, the Crown sought to justify the delay by arguing that the complexity of the case necessitated the delay. The trial judge di
Episode 2: W.W. v. His Majesty the King
Despite the fact that the trial judge found that the appellant sent sexually explicit material to a minor, the trial judge was left in doubt as to whether (a) the identity of the appellant was made out on the video as an element of the offence, and (b) the specific intent to commit one of the enumerated offences, reasoning that it could have been simply a case of “flirtation”. The appellant was ac
Episode 1: His Majesty the King v. Dylon Saddleback
Dylan Saddleback was convicted of second-degree murder in a judge alone trial. What was at issue on appeal was the trial judge’s use of statements made by the deceased during a phone call to a 3rd party, who testified at trial. The duration of that same phone call was important because the trial judge found that this is when the killing took place, as the 3rd par
Episode 7: S.A. v. His Majesty the King
S.A.’s trial for the charges of assault and sexual assault, was scheduled to commence on April 17, 2023. He elected to be tried by judge and jury. On the trial date, a judge was unavailable to preside, so the trial did not commence. A subsequent trial date was scheduled for February 12, 2024. The defence brought an 11(b) application. The 11(b) application judge s
Episode 6: J.W. v. His Majesty the King
The appellant, an Indigenous man with significant cognitive difficulties, repeatedly sexually assaulted a worker at the group home where he resided. He remained in custody pending trial, including a period of detention in a psychiatric facility while temporarily unfit to stand trial. After resiling from three agreements to plead guilty, the appellant did so the fourth time. From charge to convicti
Episode 5: Buddy Ray Underwood v. His Majesty the King
After judge alone trial, the appellant, Buddy Ray Underwood, was convicted of robbery, kidnapping, unlawful confinement and murder. The trial judge acquitted the appellant of first degree murder but entered a conviction for the included offence of second degree murder instead. The Crown appealed the acquittal.The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the Crown’s appeal, quashed t
Episode 4: R. v. R. A
The central issue in this case is whether or not the appellant committed an assault in 1978, under s. 244 of the Criminal Code as it then was. R.A. had confessed to police that when he was babysitting the complainant, who was 5 years old at the time, he was caught masturbating by her as she stood in the doorway of the bathroom. He asked the complainant if she wanted t
Episode 3: R. v. Chicoine-Joubert (French)
Ce c’est l’affaire judiciaire de Maxime Chicoine-Joubert contre sa majesté le roi.Cette affaire est une qui est allée à la Cour suprême du Canada. Cela implique un meurtre au deuxième degré et une agression armée.L'appel portait sur la question des instructions données au jury, qu'elles soient exactes, inexactes ou incomplètes.Mr. Chicoine-Joubert a soutenu que le juge avait commis une erreur en d
Episode 2: R. v. Hanrahan
At trial where the central issue was whether or not the complainant had consented to sexual activity with the accused, the jury found the accused not guilty of sexual assault. The Crown appealed, citing what they believed to be two errors. First: The Crown argued that the trial judge had been too extreme in restricting what text messages between the accused and the complainant coul
Episode 1: R. v. Bilodeau
Mr. Bilodeau was convicted by a jury as a party to manslaughter per s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, after he directed his eldest son to bring a firearm to the scene. The eldest son followed his father’s directions, and upon his arrival, fatally shot the two victims. Mr. Bilodeau had chased the two victims in his truck, after he saw the two men, who were also in a
Episode 7: R. v. Chicoine-Joubert (French)
Au terme d’un procès devant jury présidé par le juge Blanchard de la Cour supérieure, l’appelant, Maxime Chicoine-Joubert, a été déclaré coupable d’un chef de meurtre au deuxième degré et d’un chef de voies de fait armées. En appel, M. Chicoine-Joubert soutenait que le juge avait erré dans ses directives relatives à l’homicide involontaire coupable et dans sa réponse aux questions du jury, en omet
Episode 6: R. v. Stuart Michael George Sabiston
During a search incident to arrest, Mr. Sabiston told police that he had a firearm in his backpack. The officers subsequently seized a loaded prohibited firearm. The Crown ultimately stayed the charges from Mr. Sabiston’s initial arrest and proceeded to trial on the firearms offences only.The trial judge concluded that the arrest and subsequent search were unlawful, resulting in ss. 8 and 9 C
Episode 5: R. c. Varennes (French)
En 2015, l’appelant est accusé du meurtre au deuxième degré de sa conjointe. Avant son procès, une juge de la Cour supérieure du Québec accueille sa requête pour que son procès se déroule devant juge seul, suivant le par. 473(1) du Code criminel, en dépit de l’absence de consentement de l’intimé poursuivant. La juge est d’avis que la décision du poursuivant de consentir à un procès devant juge seu
Episode 4: R. v. Stevenson
Years after a restaurant was robbed by two masked assailants, an unsavoury witness, or rather, a witness that required a Vetrovec caution at trial, came forward to police and identified the appellant as one of the masked robbers. Until then, the case had remained unsolved for years. The trial judge convicted the appellant, relying almost solely on the identification of the appellant by the unsavou
Episode 3: R. v. Jennifer Pan
Hello, my name is Monica Bharadwaj and I am a criminal defence lawyer practicing in downtown Toronto. This is the case of R. v. Jennifer Pan and all. In this infamous case, Jennifer Pan is alleged to have masterminded a plan for her parents to be killed, employing the assistance of her ex-boyfriend and his cohorts to carry out the attack. In her initial police s
Episode 2: R. v. Bharwani
This case is about the Taylor test for fitness to stand trial and the separate test for not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder.Facts: after several years of deteriorating mental health, the appellant moved into a basement apartment with other tenants. Five days later, the appellant murdered one of the other tenants. The appellant told the police, surrendered himself, and explained
Episode 1: R. v. John Howard Society
When an inmate in a provincial correctional facility in Saskatchewan is charged with a disciplinary offence, the governing legislation requires the institutional authorities to determine, on a balance of probabilities, that the offence occurred in order to establish guilt. The John Howard Society of Saskatchewan asserts that employing this standard of proof violates s. 7 of the Charter. It submits
Episode 9: R. v. T.J.F.
The accused was alleged to have committed human trafficking and related offences between 2006-2011. At trial, the trial judge did not accept the complainant’s evidence. Yet, the trial judge did find that the accused had engaged in threats, intimidation and injury towards the complainant. However, the judge found that this was “past discreditable conduct” and not evidence that could be applied to m
Episode 8: R. v. Campbell
Mr. Campbell was convicted of trafficking, and heroine and Fentanyl, and possessing those drugs for the purpose of trafficking them, contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. At trial, Mr. Campbell argued that his rights under Section 8 of The Charter had been violated because he had privacy interests in text messages that he was sending a local dealer. When police arrested that local d
Episode 7: R. c. Boudreau (French)
Bonjour et bienvenue à un autre épisode de Canada’s Court présenté par l’Association des avocats de la défense. Je m’appelle Jade Roberts et je suis une avocate de la défense basée à Toronto. Je vous présente aujourd’hui le dossier de Boudreau contre sa Majesté le RoiGabriel Boudreau est déclaré coupable de conduite dangereuse causant des lésions corporelles suite à une collision qui s'est survenu
Episode 6: R. v. Flemmings
This is a bonus episode that features oral argument for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The applicants, Mr. Flemmings and Mr. Agpoon, received a stay of proceedings at trial under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter because of unreasonable delay in bringing them to trial. The heart of the issue was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on delay. The Crown preferred a direct indictmen
Episode 5: R. v. Hodgson
The Appellant, Daniel Hodgson, was charged with second-degree murder following a death at a house party. The victim, a large man, had become aggressive towards the house owner and refused to leave. Mr. Hodgson, who was asleep in a nearby bedroom, was asked by a guest to help remove the victim from the house. The victim died after Mr. Hodgson applied a one-arm choke hold on him.Mr. Hodgso
Episode 4: R. c. Archambault (French)
Bonjour et bienvenue à un autre épisode de Canada’s Court présenté par l’Association des avocats de la défense. Je m’appelle Jade Roberts et je suis une avocate de la défense basée à Toronto. Je vous présente aujourd’hui le dossier de Agénor Archambault, et al, contre sa Majesté le Roi.En juin et juillet 2019, dans deux dossiers distincts : M. Archambault est accusé de commettre un attentat à
Episode 3: R. v. Ramos
The appellants, Emanuel Lozada and Victor Ramos, were both charged with manslaughter. They, along with one another male, were involved in two fights, the second of which resulted in the fatal stabbing of the victim. At trial, the Crown argued that the appellants were liable as co-principals or as aiders or abettors of the stabber. A jury found both appellants guilty of manslaughter.The appellants
Episode 2: R. c Landry (French)
Bonjour et bienvenue à un autre épisode de Canada’s Court présenté par l’Association des avocats de la défense. Je m’appelle Jade Roberts et je suis une avocate de la défense basée à Toronto. Je vous présente aujourd’hui le dossier de Landry contre sa Majesté le RoiL’appelant, un policier, était en arrêt de travail temporaire en raison de troubles médicaux. Lors d’une réunion avec un médecin-arbit
Episode 1: R. v. Vu
Private D.T. Vu was charged with sexual assault. It was alleged that he performed a sex act on the complainant who was incapable of consenting to the act by reason of advanced intoxication. The military judge concluded that the Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant failed to consent. The Crown appealed to the Court Martial Appeal Court. The appeal was dismissed. H
Episode 6: R. c Franck Yvan Tayo Tompouba (French)
Bonjour et bienvenue à un autre épisode de Canada’s Court présenté par l’Association des avocats de la défense. Je m’appelle Jade Roberts et je suis une avocate de la défense basée à Toronto. Je vous présente aujourd’hui le dossier de Tayo Tompouba contre sa Majesté le RoiMonsieur Tayo Tompouba est inculpé d’agression sexuelle. Lors de sa première comparution, il n’est pas avisé de son droit de fa
Episode 5: R c Sergeant S.R. Proulx, et al. (FRENCH)
Bonjour et bienvenue à un autre épisode de Canada’s Court présenté par l’Association des avocats de la défense. Je m’appelle Jade Roberts et je suis une avocate de la défense basée à Toronto. Je vous présente aujourd’hui le dossier de Sergent S. R. Proulx, et al, contre sa Majesté le Roi.Les appelants sont des membres des Forces armées canadiennes. Chacun faisant face à diverses accusations. Ils o
Episode 4: Derrick Michael Lawlor v R
In the case of Derrick Michael Lawlor v The King, Mr. Lawlor, the appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada as of right from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, on the basis of a dissenting judge. The appellant had engaged in a sexual encounter with the deceased and another man at a park. Hours later, the body of the deceased was found, and the cause of death was determined to be neck compre
Episode 3: R. v. Lindsay
CASE SUMMARY- TREVOR LINDSAY V. HIS MAJESTY THE KING At what point should a police officer lose the protection offered by section 25 of the Criminal Code, justifying the use of as much force as necessary, so long as the officer acted on reasonable grounds and used that force for something the officer was required or authorized to do?This appeal comes to the Supreme Court of Canada as of right
Episode 2: R. v. Edwards, et. al.
The appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada originates from Court Martial Appeal Court (CMAC). Prior to the appeal being filed, multiple decisions came out by military judges which held that there is a lack of institutional independence because of their risk of prosecution under the military’s code of Service Discipline. It leaves military judges at risk of being influenced by a senior member of the
Episode 10: R. v. Charles (French)
Bonjour et bienvenue à un autre épisode de Canada’s Court présenté par l’Association des avocats de la défence. Je m’appelle Salematou Camara et je suis une avocate de la défense basée à Toronto. Je vous présente aujourd’hui le dossier de sa Majesté le Roi c. Yves Caleb Junior Charles.Au terme de son procès devant la cour du Québec, Monsieur Charles est déclaré coupable de trois chefs d’accusation
Episode 8: R. v. Metzger
Mr. Metzger was convicted of two counts of robbery, breaking and entering to steal a firearm, and disguise with intent in relation to 2017 home invasion. Mr. Metzger was convicted largely on the strength of DNA evidence which tied him to a cigarette butt found within the getaway vehicle 11 hours after the robbery. The trial judge concluded that this evidence permitted him to infer both recent poss
Episode 7: R. v. H.V. (French)
Il y a une ordonnance de non-publication dans le dossierL’intimé, H.V., a plaidé coupable à une infraction de leurre, poursuivie par voie sommaire, commise entre le 31 juillet et le 9 août 2017. Lors de la détermination de la peine, l’intimé a soulevé l’inconstitutionnalité de la peine minimale obligatoire de 6 mois prévue à l’al. 172.1(2)b) du Code criminel, en vertu de l’art. 12 de la Charte can
Episode 6: R. v. Chatillion (French)
M. Chatillon a été déclaré coupable d’un chef d’agression sexuelle sur une enfant. Cette condamnation a été principalement basée sur des aveux qu’il a fait aux professionnels qui l’évaluaient, dans le contexte d’une démarche entièrement volontaire en thérapie pour recevoir des soins en lien avec des problèmes liés à l’abus de substance et de déviance sexuelle. La question qui se posait était de sa
Episode 5: Hay v. His Majesty the King
Mr. Hay and the complainant met online and had been dating for approximately one month before the alleged sexual assault, involving unconsensual anal intercourse occured. At the trial, Mr. Hay was allowed under s 276 of the Criminal Code to admit evidence that during a previous consensual sexual encounter with the complainant, she encouraged him to digitally penetrate her anus. Following
Episode 4: R. c Marchand (French)
(ORDONNANCE DE NON PUBLICATION DANS LE DOSSIER)L’intimé a plaidé coupable à une accusation de contacts sexuels commis sur une mineure âgée de moins de 16 ans entre le 1er août 2013 et le 19 juillet 2015. Au cours de cette période, lui et la plaignante ont eu quatre relations sexuelles complètes. Il a plaidé également coupable à une accusation de leurre, en lien avec des échanges avec la plaignante
Episode 3: R. v. S.S
Mr. S.S. was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his niece E.B who was 6-8 years old at the time of the allegations.The crux of the crown’s case was E.B.’s unsworn video statement. E.B promised to tell the truth when she gave her police statement, yet at the preliminary hearing, she was unable to recall giving a statement to police or any details surrounding the allegations
Episode 2: R v Bykovets
This case comes before the Court as of right following a dissent in the Alberta Court of Appeal. In September of 2017, police investigated the purchase of virtual gift cards using fraudulent credit card information. There were two IP addresses of interest which police believed were used in the transactions. Warrants were executed at both residences associated and the appellant was
Episode 1: R v Abdullahi
In 2012, two young Somali men were murdered in what was perceived by Police and the media to be street level gang violence. Toronto Police led a joint forces operation, “Project Traveller”, which resulted in 55 arrests, mostly in Toronto’s northwest. The Appellant would eventually be convicted by a jury on firearms and criminal organization charges.At trial, the Crown led translations
Episode 7: R v Vernelus (French)
La Cour d’appel du Québec, rejette l’appel de l’accusé basé sur le caractère déraisonnable du verdict.Siégeant en appel, la Cour d’appel du Québec confirme le verdict de culpabilité.Selon le juge Moore, il était raisonnable pour la juge du procès de conclure que les circonstances, y compris le fait que la preuve en défense ne soulevait aucun doute raisonnable, excluaient toute conclusion autre que
Episode 6: R v David Edward Furey
On January 7, 2020, David Edward Fury entered the home of Paul and Chris Worrall on two occasions, culminating in physical confrontations between the parties. Later that night, Paul Worrall gave a statement to police. However, prior to trial, Mr. Worrall died of unrelated causes.At trial, the prosecution tendered Mr. Worrall’s statement for the truth of its contents. The trial judge admitted the s
Episode 5: Basque v His Majesty the King
In 2017, the Appellant, Jennifer Basque, was charged with operating a motor vehicle while having a blood alcohol level greater than 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. One of the conditions of her pre-trial release prohibited her from operating a motor vehicle. She was subject to the driving prohibition term of her release order for 21 months before being sentenced. The sentencing judge i
Episode 4: R. v. Downes
Mr. Downes was convicted of two counts of voyeurism contrary to s. 162(1)(a) of the Criminal Code after being found to have surreptitiously taken photographs of two adolescent male hockey players, whom he coached, dressed only in their underwear, in arena dressing rooms. In convicting Mr. Downes, the trial judge found that an arena dressing room was a “place in which a person can reasonably be exp
Episode 3: R. v. Johnston
The respondents, Matthew James Johnston and Cody Rae Haevischer, were convicted at of six counts of first-degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder at trial. They applied for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter alleging that their pretrial custody conditions as well as police misconduct during the initial investigation constituted an abuse of process. The Cr
Episode 2: R. v. McColman
At around 12:30 a.m. on March 26, 2016, police on general patrol in the area of the Thessalon Frist Nation in Northern Ontario saw a utility terrain vehicle (or UTV) parked outside a restaurant and gas station. When it appeared the UTV was about to exit the parking lot, police decided to conduct a sobriety check of the driver and turned around to follow the UTV. Approximately 200 metres down
Episode 1: R. v. Breault (French)
L’intimé M. Breault a refusé à plusieurs reprises de fournir un échantillon d’haleine à un agent de la paix qui lui ordonne de le faire, alors qu’il n’est pas en possession d’un appareil de détection approuvé.En première instance, le juge Simard de la Cour municipale de la ville de Québec déclare l’intimé coupable. Le juge détermine que le délai de quatre minutes entre l’ordre et le refus de l’int
Episode 8: R v Nahanee (Bonus)
There is a section 486.4 publication ban involving this matter.Mr. Kerry Alexander Nahanee pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault. The appellant and Crown made sentencing submissions, which were not joint submissions. The Crown sought a 4-6 year global sentence. The appellant sought a 3 to 3.5 year global sentence. The sentencing judge did not agree with the sentencing submissions, and imp
Episode 7: R v Hilbach (Bonus)
On June 9, 2017, a 19-year-old Mr. Ocean Storm Hilbach covered his face with his shirt and entered an Edmonton Convenience store with a sawed-off rifle, pointing it at two employees and demanding cash. He and his 13-year-old accomplice escaped with $290 in lottery tickets. Mr. Hilbach plead guilty and was convicted of robbery with a prohibited firearm, contrary to section 344(1)(a)(i) of the Crimi
Episode 6: McGregor v R
This case deals with the application of the Charter to Canadian armed forces members stationed abroad. The Appellant, Corporal McGregor, was a Canadian Armed Forces member stationed in Washington DC and living in nearby Alexandria, Virginia. While he was stationed there, a fellow Canadian Armed Forces member discovered an audio recording device hidden in her residence and made a report to the Cana
Episode 4: Project Raphael
In 2014, York Regional Police in Ontario established an undercover investigation known as Project Raphael, the objective of which was to reduce the demand for sexual services from minors in the region. The investigation involved officers posting fake advertisements in the “escorts” section of Backpage.com, an online classified advertising website. When an individual would respond to an ad, an unde
Episode 3: R v Badger
The Appellant, Mr. Badger, was charged with the attempted murder of Mr. Ray. The two knew each other because the Appellant was friends with Mr. Ray’s sister. The Appellant was at the Ray residence the night of the shooting but left and said that he would return later. Less than ten minutes later, Mr. Ray responded to a knock at the door and two men wearing masks entered the residence. One of the t
Episode 2: R v Alas
The respondent was convicted by a jury of second degree murder for fatally stabbing the deceased outside of a bar. The defence at trial was self defence of another person. At the pre charge conference, both the respondent and the Crown had agreed that there was no air of reality to a defence of provocation, focusing on a “cooling off period” during the interaction and other factual circumstances.
Episode 1: R v Gerrard
Following a judge alone trial in the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia, Mr. Gerrard was convicted of thirteen charges related to assaulting, threatening (including with firearms), and damaging the property of his common law spouse over a period of almost eight years. Applying the principles set out in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. W.(D.), the trial judge concluded that the complain
Episode 32: R. v. Hills
There is a section 486.4 publication ban in this matter.Mr. Hills, a person of Métis heritage, pled guilty to four offences from an incident in May 2014 where he fired several shots with his rifle at an occupied vehicle and into an occupied family residence. One of the offences he pled guilty to is the intentional discharging of a firearm into or at a place, knowing or being reckless as to wh
Episode 31: R c Boulanger
This episode of Canada’s Court is Her Majesty versus Marc-André Boulanger. The issue in this case focuses on s. 11(b) of the Charter. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether two particular periods of delay, 84 and 112 days respectively are to be attributed to defense due to their conduct. In Boulanger, an 11(b) application was brought by the defense, as a result 32 months
Episode 30: R c Brunelle
Suite à un procès pour des infractions qui découlent d'un episode de rage au volant, l ìntimé Daniel Brunelle est trouvé coupable de voies de fait graves, de voies de fait armées et de possession d’une arme dans un dessein dangereux.La juge de première instance est d'avis que monsieur Brunelle n’a pas agi en légitime défense. En particulier, pour ce qui est de la seconde condition à l’ouverture de
Episode 29: R v. Bissonnette
On the evening of January 29, 2017, the Respondent, 27-year-old Alexandre Bissonnette, left home with two firearms and ammunition, heading to the Great Mosque of Québec. On arrival, he fired at the worshippers for 2 minutes, resulting in fatalities and severe injuries. He would go on to plead guilty on 12 counts, including six of first-degree murder. At sentencing, Mr. Bissonnette challenged the c
Episode 28: R v White
This is a Crown appeal of a decision from the Court Of Appeal Of Newfoundland And Labrador allowing Mr. White’s appeal, setting aside his convictions, and ordered a new trial. In dissent, Justice Hoegg would have dismissed the appeal.It is a case that deals with a defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, as it relates to Counsel failing to obtain his informed instructions regarding
Episode 27: R. v. Sharma
In 2016, Ms. Sharma pleaded guilty to importing two kilograms of cocaine. At the sentencing hearing, Ms. Sharma argued that the CDSA mandatory minimum of two years, and the restrictions on when a conditional sentence is available, or rather not available, were all unconstitutional. The sentencing judge agreed with Ms. Sharma that the two year mandatory minimum sentence under 6(3)(a.1) of the CDSA
Episode 26: R. v. Pope
On September 7, 2017, Mr. Pope, with Mr. Collins, had been driving around in a taxi to various locations in the City from 11:00 a.m. until the mid-afternoon. When they arrived at the scene, Mr. Pope was in the front passenger seat and Mr. Collins in the back. A man, who was in a nearby van, approached the taxi and passed some money to Mr. Collins through the window. Mr. Pope told Mr. Collins that
Episode 25: R. v. Bissonnette
On the evening of January 29, 2017, the Respondent, 27-year-old Alexandre Bissonnette, left home with two firearms and ammunition, heading to the Great Mosque of Québec. On arrival, he fired at the worshippers for 2 minutes, resulting in fatalities and severe injuries. He would go on to plead guilty on 12 counts, including six of first-degree murder. At sentencing, Mr. Bissonnette challenged the c
Episode 24: R. v White
This is a Crown appeal of a decision from the Court Of Appeal Of Newfoundland And Labrador allowing Mr. White’s appeal, setting aside his convictions, and ordered a new trial. In dissent, Justice Hoegg would have dismissed the appeal.It is a case that deals with a defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, as it relates to Counsel failing to obtain his informed instructions regarding
Episode 23: R. c Brunelle
Suite à un procès pour des infractions qui découlent d'un episode de rage au volant, l ìntimé Daniel Brunelle est trouvé coupable de voies de fait graves, de voies de fait armées et de possession d’une arme dans un dessein dangereux.La juge de première instance est d'avis que monsieur Brunelle n’a pas agi en légitime défense. En particulier, pour ce qui est de la seconde condition à l’ouverture de
Episode 22: R. v. Ali
In April of 2014, police obtained and executed a search warrant on a residence in Lethbridge, Alberta, after receiving information from two informants that two individuals were selling large quantities of cocaine from said residence. During the search, Mr. Ali was found in the premises, arrested and searched. He was found to be in possession of a large amount of cash, a cell phone, and small bag o
Episode 21: R. v. . Mélanie Ste-Marie et al.
Her Majesty the Queen v. Mélanie Ste-Marie, et al. is a Crown appeal from a decision of the Québec Court of Appeal, where the appeal court stayed the proceedings following a breach of s. 11(b) of the Charter. Part of this hearing is in French.The accused, now the Respondents before the Supreme Court, were charged with conspiracy to launder proceeds of crime, laundering proceeds of crime, and comm
Episode 20: R. v. Beaver and Lambert
The appellants, Mr. Beaver and his co-accused, Mr. Lambert, were convicted of manslaughter in relation to the death of their roommate. After being initially detained by officers at the scene under a non-existent act, they were arrested by detectives for murder two hours later at the police station. Following a lengthy interview, the co-accused, Mr. Lambert, confessed to their involvement in the de
Episode 19: R v Schneider
Following a jury trial, the respondent, William Victor Schneider, was convicted of second-degree murder contrary to s. 235(1), and following the close of the Crown’s case, plead guilty to interfering with a body after death, contrary to s, 182(b) of the Criminal Code.Before the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, the appellant submitted that the murder conviction should be set aside and a new tr
Episode 18: R v Lai
There is a S. 486.4 publication ban involving this matter.In August 2013, Mr. Alan Teck Meng Lai was charged with various sexual offences. In November 2017, Mr. Lai sought to stay his charges after alleging a breach of his s. 11 (b) Charter rights to be tried within a reasonable time.At trial the judge found that there was a delay in the proceeding which totaled 57 months. The judge subt
Episode 17: R. v. Goforth
The respondent, Mr. Goforth, and his wife, Ms. Goforth, were jointly charged with the second-degree murder of their three-year-old foster child and with unlawfully causing bodily harm to a second two-year-old foster child. The predicate offence underlying both charges was failing to provide the necessaries of life – primarily as a result of starvation and neglect – contrary to s. 215 of the C
Episode 16: R v Lafrance
The respondent, Nigel Lafrance, was charged with first-degree murder. In March of 2015, shortly after the killing, police obtained and executed a search warrant on Mr. Lafrance’s home. During this search, police asked Mr. Lafrance to voluntarily provide a statement, to which he agreed. At this time, he was not arrested, nor was he provided his Charter rights. After this interview, Mr. Lafrance con
Episode 15: R. v. Dussault
The respondent, Patrick Dussault, was charged with both second-degree murder and arson. At the police station, Mr. Dussault chose to speak to Mr. Benoit, a lawyer he did not know, whom he selected from a list provided by police. During the initial phone call, Mr. Benoit informed Mr. Dussault, that in light of the serious nature of the charges, he, Mr. Benoit, would come to the station and speak to
Episode 14: R c J.F.
L’intimé est accusé de 18 chefs relatifs à des crimes de nature sexuelle commis dans les années 70 et 80 sur quatre victimes alors mineures incluant sa fille, son fils, sa nièce et son neveu. Son procès débute en mars 2015 devant le juge Beaulieu. Cependant le procès est interrompu lorsque le juge tombe malade. Seule la plaignante C.D. a alors été entendue.Les parties comparaissent afin de reporte
Episode 13: R v Sundman
The appellant, Mr. Sundman, was acquitted of first degree murder but convicted of the included offence of second degree murder. The trial judge found that Mr. Sundman could not be convicted of first degree murder pursuant to s. 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code because, at the time of the shooting, the victim’s confinement had come to an end.The Crown appealed the acquittals of first degree murder an
Episode 12: R v Tessier
In the early morning hours of March 16, 2007, the deceased’s body was discovered in a ditch near Calgary. The victim had been fatally shot in the head. Police determined that Mr. Russell Steven Tessier was a friend and business associate of the deceased, and asked Mr. Tessier to come in for an interview the following day.Mr. Tessier agreed to the interview and met with police for almost 3 hours. A
Episode 11: R c Vallières
Le procès de M. Vallières a eu lieu en cour supérieur devant un jury qui l’a reconnu coupable d’infractions se rapportant à la fraude, au trafic et au vol de sirop d’érable de la Fédération des producteurs acéricoles du Québec.Le point en litige devant la Cour suprême concerne la détermination de la peine pour la commission de ces infractions. De façon plus particulière, il s’agit en l’espère de l
Episode 10: R. v. Kirkpatrick
The complainant and the appellant met online, and up until March 2017 they had met in person on only a single occasion, for about two hours. On that occasion, they discussed sexual practices. The complainant told the appellant that she insisted on the use of condoms during sexual intercourse. The appellant agreed that such a practice was safest for all concerned. A few days later, the two decided
Episode 9: R. v. Brown
At trial, appellant, Matthew Brown, was acquitted of breaking and entering with commission of aggravated assault. The accused attended a party where he consumed alcohol and magic mushrooms. While intoxicated, he broke into two homes, assaulting the occupant in the first residence and causing damage to property in the other. The accused challenged the constitutionality of s. 33.1 of the Criminal Co
Episode 8: R. v. Samaniego
Mr. Samaniego and his co-accused were convicted by a jury of possession of a loaded restricted firearm. It was alleged that Mr. Samaniego had brought the firearm to a nightclub and used it to threaten a security guard. The only evidence linking Mr. Samaniego to the firearm was the testimony of a security guard, who was a friend of the co-accused.The security guard’s credibility was central to the
Recommended
Zoomer Report
The Politics of Money: An IFSD Podcast
Buds N Blue Jays
The Flight Deck | Toronto Blue Jays Podcast
On est Dans le Jus
Thunder Bay
The evOLVED Brain: ADHD Parenting, Emotional Intelligence, & Raising Extraordinary Kids
Saints Church Glory Hills
Saints Church Glastonbury
The FAN Hockey Show
Money Feels
Between Calls - A Paramedic Podcast
