Ineffective Counsel (Cases): Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
m Text replacement - "ONCA ([0-9]+)\] \(CanLII\){{TheCourt}}" to "ONCA $1] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}}"
m Text replacement - "\'\'R v ([a-zA-Z]+)\'\'\,<br> \[http:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/([a-z0-9]+) ([0-9]+ [A-Z]+ [0-9]+)\] \([a-zA-Z]+\)\{" to "{{CanLIIR-S|$1|$2|$3 (CanLII)}}{"
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|{{CanLIIR-S|Benham|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|{{CanLIIR-S|Lovas|fx054|2013 ONSC 1932 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Durno J}} | denied | }}


{{SCaseResult|''R v Eroma'',<br>[http://canlii.ca/t/fws1v 2013 ONCA 194] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}} | 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){{TheCourtONCA}} | granted | lawyer did not permit accused to chose whether to testify. }}

Revision as of 08:24, 30 January 2021

Ineffective Counsel

See also: 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.