Defences

R v Pan and the Price of Fairness: An “Air of Reality” in A Complex Jury Trial

In R v Pan, the Supreme Court of Canada has addressed the scope of the “air of reality” test as it applies to included offences in jury trials. The majority has upheld the Ontario Court of Appeal’s verdict that Jennifer Pan should undergo a new trial regarding her initial first-degree murder charge, but maintained her conviction related to the attempted murder charge. Furthermore, the Court determined that the trial judge erred by failing to leave lesser included offences, such as second-degree murder or manslaughter, to the jury where there was a realistic possibility of conviction on those offences.

Who Decides What the Jury Decides? R v BF and the Air-of-Reality Threshold

On December 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R v BF, restoring a conviction for attempted murder and rejecting the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s holding that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury sufficiently on a potential defence. In doing so, the SCC engaged with a fundamental question arising in the case: whether there was any air of reality to the theory that, rather than attempted murder, the accused was aiding a suicide attempt.

R v Kinamore: The Problem with Perfect Symmetry in Sexual Assault Trials

The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its decision in R v Kinamore, clarifying that a complainant's sexual inactivity amounts to sexual history under s. 276 of the Criminal Code. Evidence of one’s sexual inactivity is therefore presumptively inadmissible unless first vetted through a voir dire, a pre-trial hearing to determine admissibility. The Court further clarified that this requirement applies regardless of which party introduces the evidence.

APPEAL WATCH: Uneven Scrutiny and Twin Myth Safeguards – A Cry for Clarity 

Earlier in February of 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) granted leave to hear the appeal of British Columbia Court of Appeal (“BCCA”) case R v Kinamore, 2023 BCCA 337 [Kinamore]. The appeal concerns the uneven scrutiny of competing evidence and the application of the s. 276 of Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 […]

APPEAL WATCH: R v Pan, a legally messy murder 

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has granted leave to appeal the long and complex case of R v Pan 2023 ONCA 362 [Pan]. At trial, four co-accused – Jennifer Pan (“Pan”), Daniel Chi-Kwong Wong (“Wong”), Lenford Crawford (“Crawford”), and David Mylvaganam (“Mylvaganam”) – were all convicted of first-degree murder and attempted murder in the […]

Appeal Watch: What is 'Reasonable Self-Defence'?

Canada’s self-defence laws, which were recently reformed to provide greater clarity for that defence, have stirred up new uncertainty. In R v Hodgson, 2022 NUCA 9, the Court of Appeal of Nunavut (“NUCA”) overturned an acquittal of a second degree murder charge stemming from an act of self-defence based on the multiple perceived legal errors […]

Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code declared “of no force and effect” in R v Brown

In May 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC” or the “Court”) released two important decisions in R v Brown, 2022 SCC 18 [Brown] and its companion case, R v Sullivan, 2022 SCC 19 [Sullivan]. This article discusses Brown. For more information on Sullivan, refer to the case comment here. In Brown, Justice Nicholas […]

Evaluating the Doctrine of Entrapment in Online Spaces: R v Haniffa and R v Dare Granted Leave to Appeal

Can the police target an online community that is known to match interested parties with underage escorts? The Supreme Court’s (“SCC”) latest grants of leave to appeal from R v Haniffa 2021 ONCA 326 [Haniffa] and R v Dare, 2021 ONCA 327 [Dare] will be a welcome advancement to how entrapment is conceptualized in online […]

Broadening the Scope of Self-defence: Accused’s “Role in the Incident” in R v Khill

For many people, self-defence means a person was desperate, in a kill-or-be-killed situation, and makes a split-second choice to save their own life. After R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37 (“Khill”), we know that’s not quite right. An accused's role may be broad, made up of any conduct that shows whether they acted reasonably—not just […]

R v Khill: Jury Instructions and Assessing Reasonableness for the Defence of Self-Defense

In the case of R v Khill, 2020 ONCA 151 [Khill], Mr. Khill was initially found not guilty of second-degree murder in 2018 for fatally shooting Mr. Styres, an Indigenous man, in 2016. However, the Crown appealed the verdict, and the Court of Appeal overturned the decision on the basis that the trial judge failed […]