Ineffective Counsel (Cases): Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "\'\'R v ([a-zA-Z]+)\'\'<br> \[http:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/([a-zA-Z0-9_]+) ([1-2][0-9]+ [A-Z]+ [0-9]+)\] \(CanLII\)\{" to "{{CanLIIR-S|$1|$2|$3 (CanLII)}}{" |
m Text replacement - "''R v ([a-zA-Z]+)''\,<br>\[http:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/([a-zA-Z0-9]+) ([1-2][0-9]+ [A-Z]+ [0-9]+)\] \(CanLII\)\{" to "{{CanLIIR-S|$1|$2|$3 (CanLII)}}{" |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
{{SCaseResult|{{CanLIIR-S|Lovas|fx054|2013 ONSC 1932 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Durno J}} | denied | }} | {{SCaseResult|{{CanLIIR-S|Lovas|fx054|2013 ONSC 1932 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Durno J}} | denied | }} | ||
{{SCaseResult| | {{SCaseResult|{{CanLIIR-S|Eroma|fws1v|2013 ONCA 194 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}} | granted | lawyer did not permit accused to chose whether to testify. }} | ||
{{SCaseResult|{{CanLIIR-S|Travis|ftj3x|2012 ABQB 629 (CanLII)}}{{perABQB| Yamauchi J}} | denied | failed to call witnesses or request further disclosure}} | {{SCaseResult|{{CanLIIR-S|Travis|ftj3x|2012 ABQB 629 (CanLII)}}{{perABQB| Yamauchi J}} | denied | failed to call witnesses or request further disclosure}} | ||
Revision as of 09:05, 2 February 2021
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. |