Ontario Criminal


Appellate court could not tell if judge rejected evidence or even considered it

Accused appealed his conviction of trafficking in which officer observed him engaged in drug transaction with another individual. Police arrest other individual and trial judge did not address that individual’s exculpatory evidence that he acquired substance in his possession on arrest, from another source prior to his encounter with accused. Appeal allowed, new trial ordered. Court noted this was not case of complainant telling one story and accused telling opposite story where express acceptance of complainant’s evidence coupled with verdict may be enough that trial judge did not need to directly address accused’s evidence. Evidence from individual could have exonerated accused and appellate court could not tell if judge rejected that evidence or even considered it.

R. v. Weckwerth (Oct. 30, 2013, Ont. C.A., S.T. Goudge J.A., E.A. Cronk J.A., and S.E. Pepall J.A., File No. CA C56534) 110 W.C.B. (2d) 125.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?