Case information

None.

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.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Criminal law – Review of convictions – Judicial review – Applicant convicted of murder applying to Minister of Justice for review of his conviction – Minister dismissing second application for review on ground that applicant not presenting any new facts or evidence – Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in failing to recognize new evidence presented in this regard – Breach of fairness by Federal Court of Appeal – Whether dismissal of appellant’s appeal by Federal Court of Appeal was unreasonable – Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in upholding imposition of time limit on appellant to prove his innocence – Whether Federal Court of Appeal failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision – Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 46, ss. 696.1 et seq. – Regulations Respecting Applications for Ministerial Review – Miscarriages of Justice, SOR/2002 416, s. 4.

In 1995, Mr. Timm was convicted of the first degree murder of his adoptive parents. His appeal against the verdict was dismissed by the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. In 2001, Mr. Timm made a first application for review to the federal Minister of Justice, alleging that a miscarriage of justice had occurred: according to him, the police had fabricated evidence and concealed other evidence that could have revealed the fabrication. The application for review was dismissed, as were the application for judicial review, the appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In 2013, Mr. Timm made a second application for ministerial review of his conviction, relying, inter alia, on the matter of the “incriminating statement” to the police in which he had allegedly admitted cutting the murder weapon. According to him, that statement had turned out to be non existent, which was new and important evidence in dealing with his case. The second application was dismissed on the ground that Mr. Timm had not provided any new facts or evidence.

Mr. Timm then applied for judicial review of the Minister’s decision on the ground that it was unreasonable and contrary to s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.