Supreme Court


Evidence not so decisive as to allow immediate disposition in form of acquittal

Victim was shot and killed in nightclub and his brother was shot and wounded. Accused and another convicted of first degree murder and attempted murder. Crown’s theory was that accused shaved his head upon returning home from shootings to change his appearance. Accused’s application to adduce fresh evidence of experts who conducted forensic examination of hair clippings to determine whether they could have been hair from accused’s scalp granted. Fresh evidence was directly relevant to whether accused was shooter. Appropriate remedy was new trial. Expert evidence could reasonably be expected to have affected verdict but was not so decisive as to allow immediate disposition in form of acquittal.

R. v. Hay (Nov. 8, 2013, S.C.C., McLachlin C.J.C., LeBel J., Fish J., Abella J., Rothstein J., Cromwell J., and Wagner J., File No. 33536) 110 W.C.B. (2d) 96.

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?