Ineffective Counsel (Cases): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
{{SCaseHeaderResult}} | {{SCaseHeaderResult}} | ||
{{SCaseResult|R v Benham,<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/fz5b3 2013 BCCA 276] (CanLII)| 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) | 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) | 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) | 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}} | ||
{{SCaseResult|R v Aulakh<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/fsbm1 2012 BCCA 340] (CanLII) | denied |allege defence failed on a number of points}} | {{SCaseResult|R v Aulakh<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/fsbm1 2012 BCCA 340] (CanLII){{perBCCA|D Smith JA}} | denied |allege defence failed on a number of points}} | ||
{{SCaseResult|R v G.M.<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/fs3xc 2012 NLCA 47] (CanLII)| granted | defence failed to call evidence attacking credibility of crown witness }} | {{SCaseResult|R v G.M.<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/fs3xc 2012 NLCA 47] (CanLII){{perNLCA|Welsh JA}}| granted | defence failed to call evidence attacking credibility of crown witness }} | ||
{{SCaseResult|R v Downing<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/frbq8 2012 ABQB 287] (CanLII) | denied | }} | {{SCaseResult|R v Downing<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/frbq8 2012 ABQB 287] (CanLII){{perABQB| Nielsen J}} | denied | }} | ||
{{SCaseResult|R v Ross<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/frj5p 2012 NSCA 56] (CanLII) | granted | trial counsel did not call any evidence or cross-examine on sexual interference case where defence was an honest mistaken belief of age}} | {{SCaseResult|R v Ross<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/frj5p 2012 NSCA 56] (CanLII){{perNSCA|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}} | ||
{{SCaseResult|R v O'Keefe (No. 2)<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/frczp 2012 NLCA 25] (CanLII)| denied | claimed counsel failed to call witnesses, raise charter issues, make requested election}} | {{SCaseResult|R v O'Keefe (No. 2)<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/frczp 2012 NLCA 25] (CanLII){{perNLCA|Harrington JA}}| denied | claimed counsel failed to call witnesses, raise charter issues, make requested election}} | ||
{{SCaseResult|R v Fraser<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/fmdck 2011 NSCA 70] (CanLII)| granted | new trial ordered}} | {{SCaseResult|R v Fraser<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/fmdck 2011 NSCA 70] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Saunders JA}}| granted | new trial ordered}} | ||
{{SCaseResult|R v Hobbs<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/2b5sw 2010 NSCA 53] (CanLII) | denied |}} | {{SCaseResult|R v Hobbs<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/2b5sw 2010 NSCA 53] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Saunders JA}} | denied |}} | ||
{{SCaseResult|R v MB<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/245hl 2009 ONCA 524] (CanLII) | granted | new trial ordered}} | {{SCaseResult|R v MB<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/245hl 2009 ONCA 524] (CanLII){{perONCA| Cronk and Armstrong JJA}} | granted | new trial ordered}} | ||
{{SCaseResult|R v TP<br> [2002] O.J. No. 2142 (Ont. C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1vbfd 2002 ONCA 49360] (CanLII)| |}} | {{SCaseResult|R v TP<br> [2002] O.J. No. 2142 (Ont. C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1vbfd 2002 ONCA 49360] (CanLII){{perONCA|Simmons JA}}| |}} | ||
{{SCaseResult|R v Gardiner<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/2b618 2010 NBCA 46] (CanLII)| granted | counsel failed to apply Browne v Dunn rule in examination, so new trial ordered.}} | {{SCaseResult|R v Gardiner<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/2b618 2010 NBCA 46] (CanLII){{perNBCA|Richard JA}}| granted | counsel failed to apply Browne v Dunn rule in examination, so new trial ordered.}} | ||
{{SCaseEnd}} | {{SCaseEnd}} |
Revision as of 18:55, 28 November 2018
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] O.J. 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. |