Criminal Procedure

Trial Fitness Clarified: The SCC’s Approach in R v Bharwani

When the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal in R v Bharwani, it represented the first instance in over three decades that the highest court had the opportunity to interpret section 2 of the Criminal Code, since Parliament established the statutory definition for “unfit to stand trial” in 1991. Canadian mental disorder jurisprudence has come a long way in the previous three decades, but fitness—an issue central to the accused’s autonomy, trial fairness, and the “Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder” regime—remains largely governed by Taylor, an integral, but pre-Charter-evolution decision.

Pandemic Pressures and Procedural Justice: Evaluating the Supreme Court’s Approach in R v Varennes

The Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”) decision in R. v. Varennes 2025 SCC 22 ("Varennes") highlights the tension between prosecutorial discretion, judicial oversight, and the protection of Charter rights under extraordinary circumstances. Varennes addresses whether a trial judge can order a judge-alone trial over the Crown’s objection during the COVID-19 pandemic. The SCC’s reasoning navigates […]

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.

R v Jaser and the Supreme Court’s Silence on National Security Appeals

In August 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear Raed Jaser’s latest appeal in the high-profile terrorism prosecution arising from the 2013 VIA Rail plot. As is customary in leave to appeal decisions, no reasons were provided.

APPEAL WATCH: Revisiting the admissibility of similar fact evidence in R v Chizanga

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) will soon hear the appeal of R v Chizanga, 2024 ONCA 545 [Chizanga], in which it will opine on the principles of admitting evidence of prior discreditable conduct [41405].  Building upon the seminal case of R v Handy, 2002 SCC 56 [Handy] which set out the principles for the admissibility of such evidence, this appeal […]

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 […]

R v Abdullahi: The (In)Flexibility of the Appellate Review of Jury Instructions

In R v Abdullahi, 2023 SCC 19 [Abdullahi], Canada’s highest court made a 6-1 ruling that an Ontario trial judge erred in law by insufficiently instructing the jury of the legal definition of “criminal organization” per s. 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 [Code] or [Criminal Code]. This decision is important for […]

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 […]

“Manifestly Frivolous”: R v Haevischer & Summary Dismissal in Criminal Law

In a rare unanimous judgement, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has ruled in R v Haevischer, 2023 SCC 11 (Haevischer) that only “manifestly frivolous” applications can be summarily dismissed in the criminal law context. The decision is significant for two reasons: (1) it arises out of the notorious “Surrey Six” case; and (2) it […]

The Law's Delay: R v Hanan

In R v Hanan, 2023 SCC 12 [Hanan], the Supreme Court (“SCC”) found that transitional exceptional circumstances did not excuse an excess delay of proceedings under s 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [Charter].    Facts On December 23, 2015, the accused was charged with first degree murder, attempted murder, and firearms-related […]