Ineffective Counsel (Cases): Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "O.J. No. " to "OJ No " |
m Text replacement - "(R v [A-Z][a-z]+)," to "''$1''," |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
{{SCaseHeaderResult}} | {{SCaseHeaderResult}} | ||
{{SCaseResult|R v Benham,<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/fz5b3 2013 BCCA 276] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Frankel JA}}| denied | failure to advise the accused to testify, failure to call certain witnesses}} | {{SCaseResult|''R v Benham'',<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/fz5b3 2013 BCCA 276] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Frankel JA}}| denied | failure to advise the accused to testify, failure to call certain witnesses}} | ||
{{SCaseResult|R v Lovas,<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/fx054 2013 ONSC 1932] (CanLII){{perONSC|Durno J}} | denied | }} | {{SCaseResult|''R v Lovas'',<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/fx054 2013 ONSC 1932] (CanLII){{perONSC|Durno J}} | denied | }} | ||
{{SCaseResult|R v Eroma,<br>[http://canlii.ca/t/fws1v 2013 ONCA 194] (CanLII){{TheCourt}} | granted | lawyer did not permit accused to chose whether to testify. }} | {{SCaseResult|''R v Eroma'',<br>[http://canlii.ca/t/fws1v 2013 ONCA 194] (CanLII){{TheCourt}} | granted | lawyer did not permit accused to chose whether to testify. }} | ||
{{SCaseResult|R v Travis<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/ftj3x 2012 ABQB 629] (CanLII){{perABQB| Yamauchi J}} | denied | failed to call witnesses or request further disclosure}} | {{SCaseResult|R v Travis<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/ftj3x 2012 ABQB 629] (CanLII){{perABQB| Yamauchi J}} | denied | failed to call witnesses or request further disclosure}} |
Revision as of 09:04, 13 January 2019
Ineffective Counsel
Case Name | Result | Summary |
---|---|---|
R v Benham, 2013 BCCA 276 (CanLII), per Frankel JA |
denied | failure to advise the accused to testify, failure to call certain witnesses |
R v Lovas, 2013 ONSC 1932 (CanLII), per Durno J |
denied | |
R v Eroma, 2013 ONCA 194 (CanLII), per curiam |
granted | lawyer did not permit accused to chose whether to testify. |
R v Travis 2012 ABQB 629 (CanLII), per Yamauchi J |
denied | failed to call witnesses or request further disclosure |
R v Aulakh 2012 BCCA 340 (CanLII), per D Smith JA |
denied | allege defence failed on a number of points |
R v G.M. 2012 NLCA 47 (CanLII), per Welsh JA |
granted | defence failed to call evidence attacking credibility of crown witness |
R v Downing 2012 ABQB 287 (CanLII), per Nielsen J |
denied | |
R v Ross 2012 NSCA 56 (CanLII), per Bryson JA |
granted | trial counsel did not call any evidence or cross-examine on sexual interference case where defence was an honest mistaken belief of age |
R v O'Keefe (No. 2) 2012 NLCA 25 (CanLII), per Harrington JA |
denied | claimed counsel failed to call witnesses, raise charter issues, make requested election |
R v Fraser 2011 NSCA 70 (CanLII), per Saunders JA |
granted | new trial ordered |
R v Hobbs 2010 NSCA 53 (CanLII), per Saunders JA |
denied | |
R v MB 2009 ONCA 524 (CanLII), per Cronk and Armstrong JJA |
granted | new trial ordered |
R v TP [2002] OJ No 2142 (Ont. C.A.), 2002 ONCA 49360 (CanLII), per Simmons JA |
||
R v Gardiner 2010 NBCA 46 (CanLII), per Richard JA |
granted | counsel failed to apply Browne v Dunn rule in examination, so new trial ordered. |