PREPARED

S.C.C. UPDATE
HERE IS A SUMMARY OF ALL
APPEALS AND ALL LEAVES TO
APPEAL (ONES GRANTED – SO YOU
KNOW WHAT AREAS OF LAW THE
S.C.C. WILL SOON BE DEALING
WITH IN CASE ANY MAY BE AN AREA
OF LAW YOU’RE LITIGATING/
A D V I S I N G/MANAG I N G).
F OR
LEAVES, I’VE SPECIFICALLY ADDED
IN BOTH THE DATE THE S.C.C.
GRANTED LEAVE AND THE DATE OF
THE C.A. JUDGMENT BELOW, IN
CASE YOU WANT TO TRACK AND
CHECK OUT THE C.A. JUDGMENT.
ORAL JUDGEMENTS
CRIMINAL LAW: PARTIES TO
AN OFFENCE
R. v. Lévesque
(Que. C.A. .June 7, 2011) (34417)
2013 SCC 20 (April 16, 2013)
Eugene Meehan, QC
Supreme Advocacy LLP
Ottawa
LeBel J.: [translation] “The [trial]
judge...gave, in response to a
specific question from the jury on
being an accessory and being a
party to an offence, additional
instructions that were incomplete
and confusing…the nature of the
charges...raises the question
whether it would be possible to
base a conviction for first degree
murder on the accused being a
party to the offence within the
meaning of 2. 21(2)...the appeal is
allowed, the verdict of guilty is set
aside, and the Court orders...a new
trial...in respect of the same
charges”
~
CRIMINAL LAW: CONSPIRACY
R. v. Murphy
(N.S.C.A., Sept. 6, 2012)(34980)
2013 SCC 21 (April 16, 2013)
LeBel J.: “… the verdict was not
unreasonable. The appeal is
dismissed.”
~
EXTRADITION (TO CANADA)
R v. E.F.M.
(N.S.C.A., Dec 8, 2011)(34650)
2013 SCC 23 (April 16, 2013)
The Chief Justice: "… the right of
the accused to be tried within a
reasonable time was violated. The
appeal accordingly is dismissed."
The Canadian Legal Information Institute
Making Canadian law accessible
for free on the internet.
www.canlii.org
APPEALS
ABORIGINAL LAW: DUTY TO
CONSULT; ABUSE OF PROCESS
Behn v. Moulton Contracting Ltd.
(B.C.C.A., July 06, 2011)(34404)
2013 SCC 26 (May 9, 2013)
The duty to consult exists to
protect the collective, not
individual, rights of Aboriginal
peoples. The doctrine of abuse of
process is characterized by its
flexibility, and abuse occurred
here.
~
CRIMINAL LAW: BABY
CONCEALMENT
R. v. A.D.H.
(Sask. C.A., Jan. 12, 2011)(34132)
2013 SCC 28 (May 17, 2013)
The trial judge and the majority
judges of the Court of Appeal were
correct to require subjective fault.
~
CRIMINAL LAW: CONCEALING
DEAD BODY OF A CHILD
R. v. Levkovic
(Ont. C.A., Dec. 07, 2010)(34229)
2013 SCC 25 (May 3, 2013)
S.243 Criminal Code is not
unconstitutional for vagueness;
and, evidence that a child would
likely be born alive is enough for a
conviction.
18 ■ MAY/JUNE 2013 ARCTIC OBITER