Criminal Procedure

When Reconciliation Meets Denunciation: Gladue and the Supreme Court’s Challenge in R v Cope

In early 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal the decision in R v Cope, a split decision from the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The primary question of law on appeal concerns how sentencing judges should balance the reconciliatory imperatives of R v Gladue, and R v Ipeelee, with Parliament’s emphasis on denunciation and deterrence as primary considerations in cases involving violence against Indigenous women.

Crown Concessions and Appellate Authority in R v Bouvette

In R v Bouvette [“Bouvette”], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confronted a remedial question at the intersection of prosecutorial discretion and appellate authority. When a conviction is quashed for miscarriage of justice, in what circumstances should a court of appeal enter an acquittal rather than order a new trial or impose a judicial stay, […]

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.

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 […]