1 Supreme Court of Canada Case Assignment Maria Angelica Abeleda (2199787) Acsenda School of Management BADM301: Business Law Sasha Ramnarine December 2, 2022 2 Court Assignment Part A The Hearing Name of Parties: R. v. Doonanco Place of Trial: Alberta Court of Appeal Date of Trial: February 18, 2020 Courtroom: Was not given Judge: Was not given Level of Court: Supreme Court of Canada Summary of Facts In January of 2017, the Appellant, Deborah Lee Doonanco, was found guilty by the trial court over the case of second-degree murder, interference with human remains, and arson. On May 25, 2014, Mr. Feland, was shot twice by the Appellant, Deborah Lee Doonanco, in their home in Alberta. The Appellant started a fire after and left the house. She then told the first responders on the scene that Mr. Feland had started the fire but later admitted to killing him. During the trial, the Appellant argued that it was self-defense and that she was suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) and that she should have a lighter sentence. However, the Appellant was convicted of all three. She took her appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in an alleged unfair trial. Appellant’s Argument The Appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal of her conviction of being guilty of arson, second-degree murder, and interference with human remains be dismissed. The Appellant had an expert in Battered Woman’s Syndrome (BWS) in her defence. It was also argued that the Crown breached three obligations for a fair trial. First, the Crown failed to handle an expert report on the subject of battered woman syndrome. Second, the Crown failed to cross-examine. And third, as a result of the Appellant not being given the opportunity to respond with her own expert evidence showed an impression of unfairness. 3 Decision and Reasons The Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal, and a decision was made on February 18, 2020. The appeal is allowed, and the convictions are revoked. A new trial is ordered for all convictions. The judge found that the Crown’s failure to disclose vital information such as the report of the Appellant's psychiatric result, the expert testimony in the trial failed to explain and cross-examine the Appellant and that the Appellant was not able to properly respond to the analysis. Part B Impressions The prosecution and the court wanted the case to be closed early and have resulted in fatal errors upon presenting the case in a concise manner in front of the jury in the first trial. The Supreme Court of Canada, however, made an effort to be fair in reviewing things that have been breached during the trial and carefully reconsider every aspect of it. The decision in every courtroom is carefully considered based on the facts given by the Appellant's defense. It is good that every possibility are examined to make a better judgment on every case.
