Criminal

R. v. H.S.B., 2008 SCC 52
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Criminal law / Reasons for judgment)
At trial, HSB was convicted of four offences relating to sexual abuse and threatening to kill the complainant.  After reasons for judgment were issued, HSB applied to re-open the trial and call fresh evidence.  After hearing the fresh evidence, the trial judge issued a second set of reasons confirming the earlier convictions.  The second set of reasons dealt primarily with the fresh evidence.  The Court held that the bifurcation of the trial judge's reasons into two separate, overlapping considerations was not fatal because the reasons, as a whole, were sufficient.
Majority/Dissent: 7/0

R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Criminal law / Reasons for judgment)
The complainant alleged that REM had sexually assaulted her numerous times when she was between the ages of 9 and 17.  REM admitted having sex with the complainant, but claimed it was consensual, occuring only after the complainant had attained the age of consent at the time.  The trial judge accepted most of the complainant's evidence, rejected most of REM's evidence, and convicted REM.  REM appealed, arguing that the trial judge's reasons did not sufficiently explain why the trial judge had preferred the complainant's evidence over REM's evidence.  The Court upheld the conviction, finding that while the reasons were not ideal, they were sufficient.
Majority/Dissent: 7/0

R. v. Walker, 2008 SCC 34
Click here to link to the full judgment. 
(Criminal law / Reasons for judgment)
The accused shot and killed his common law spouse after a night of drinking.  At trial, he was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter.  The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal, finding that the trial judge's reasons were unclear.  The Supreme Court restored the acquittal, finding that, while the judge's reasons were far from perfect, they did provide sufficient information for the decision to be reviewed.
Majority/Dissent: 7/0

Tele-Mobile Co. v. Ontario, 2008 SCC 12
Click here to link to the full judgment. 
(Criminal law / Third-party production order)
Under an amendment to the Criminal Code in 2004, law enforcement agencies may obtain a production order to produce third party documents for criminal investigations.  Tele-Mobility, the subject of one of these orders, argued that the judge hearing the application could order the government to pay compensation for the cost of producing documents.  The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that while a third party could seek exemption from the order if the order imposed an unreasonable burden, the statute does not allow a court to order compensation.
Majority/Concurring: 9/0

R. v. Beatty, 2008 SCC 5
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Criminal law / Criminal negligence / Dangerous operation of motor vehicle causing death)
While driving, B's vehicle crossed the centre line and hit another vehicle, killing three occupants of the other car.  Evidence showed that B was not intoxicated, there was no mechanical failure, and B had been driving normally immediately before the collision.  There was no apparent reason for B's vehicle to cross the centre line.  The Court found that B's momentary lapse of attention was not sufficient in the circumstances to constitute a marked departure from the standard of care required by the Criminal Code.  B was acquitted.
Majority/Concurring/Concurring: 5/3/1

R. v. C.L.Y., 2008 SCC 2
Click here to link to the fulll judgment.
(Criminal / Burden of proof)
C.L.Y., a teenager, was convicted of two counts of sexual assault at trial.  The assault charges arose from incidents that allegedly occurred while C.L.Y. was babysitting a girl between the ages of six and eight.  The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge misapprehended and mischaracterized the evidence, specifically leading the judge to disbelieve C.L.Y.  The Court split on whether the trial judge shifted the burden of proof by accepting the complainant's evidence before hearing the evidence of the accused.
Majority/Concurring: 4/3

R. v. Grover, 2007 SCC 51
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Criminal law / Powers of court of appeal)
Grover was convicted at trial of attempting to obstruct justice.  Crucial to the conviction, the trial judge found that smoke detector records were false, and Grover knew them to be false.  On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected the trial judge's finding and entered an acquittal, finding that Grover may not have known that the records were false.  The Supreme Court restored the conviction, holding that it was not open to the Court of Appeal to acquit on the basis of speculation that was contradicted by Grover's own testimony.
Majority/Dissent: 7/0