Ineffective Counsel (Cases): Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
m Text replacement - "(R v [A-Z][a-z]+)," to "''$1'',"
m Text replacement - "(R v [A-Z][a-z]+)<br>" to "''$1''<br>"
Line 14: Line 14:
{{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}}


{{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 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){{perNLCA|Welsh JA}}| 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){{perABQB| Nielsen J}} | 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){{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 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){{perNLCA|Harrington JA}}| 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){{perNSCA|Saunders JA}}| 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){{perNSCA|Saunders JA}} | 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){{perONCA| Cronk and Armstrong JJA}} | 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}}
Line 34: Line 34:
{{SCaseResult|R v TP<br> [2002] OJ No 2142 (Ont. C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1vbfd 2002 ONCA 49360] (CanLII){{perONCA|Simmons JA}}| |}}
{{SCaseResult|R v TP<br> [2002] OJ 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){{perNBCA|Richard JA}}| 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 13:47, 13 January 2019

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.