Summary

Keywords

APPEAL:

Criminal law - Evidence - Expert evidence - Disclosure of expert report - Battered woman syndrome - Whether the Crown’s failure to comply with the provisions of s. 657.3(3)(b) of the Criminal Code in conjunction with its failure to comply with the conditions the trial judge subsequently placed on Dr. Glancy’s testimony, and in light of its failure to cross-examine Dr. Walker on the substance of the evidence it subsequently led from Dr. Glancy, compromised the fairness of the trial - Whether a compromise of trial fairness can be remedied on appeal only if first advanced as a Charter application made at trial - Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 657.3(3)(b)(i).

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE)

APPEAL:

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder, indecent interference with human remains and arson, in relation to the death of her ex-husband. She shot him twice while they were in their home, and then set the house on fire. At trial, she unsuccessfully advanced self-defence and battered woman syndrome. On appeal, she argued, among other things, that the Crown’s delay in disclosing its expert evidence to rebut her expert evidence on whether, at the time she shot her ex-husband, she suffered from battered woman syndrome, ultimately rendered her trial unfair. A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Bielby J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on all counts. In her view, the trial was not rendered unfair simply because the Crown had breached its statutory obligation under s. 657.3(3)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code. Rather, the trial was unfair because the limits the trial judge imposed as a remedy for the statutory disclosure breach had not been met, and the appellant was prevented from leading evidence from her expert witness and other witnesses on the accuracy and relevance of the Crown’s expert evidence.

Lower Court Rulings