Home »

Grace Shin

Contemporaneousness of Sexual Consent in R v AE

Content Warning: This article includes depictions of sexual violence that may evoke strong emotions for some readers. The jurisprudence surrounding the requirement for consent as a defence for sexual assault has expanded substantially to dispel the stereotypes and myths associated with sexual assault, most recently refined in R v Barton, 2019 SCC 33 [Barton]. Despite this […]

R v Ali : Strip Search Justified by Police Hearsay Evidence

Strip searches are an invasive police power that, if conducted without the proper preconditions, can infringe s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11(“the Charter”). S.8 protects an individual’s right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. It is established in […]

Departing from the “Natural Parent Presumption” in BJT v JD

Families come in all shapes and sizes, and the primary caregivers of a child in a given family aren’t necessarily always the child’s parents. The law, however, has struggled to grasp the diversity of family structures in the context of custody hearings. The Prince Edward Court of Appeal (“PECA”) faced this dilemma in BJT v […]

Barendregt v Grebliunas Hearing: Admitting New Evidence in Family Law Cases

New evidence is rarely introduced or accepted at appeal courts. However, this rule of thumb could change as the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) hears submissions from counsel in Barendregt v Grebliunas. It is one of three cases the SCC is hearing on child custody matters Dec. 1st and 2nd, 2021, but this one could […]

Reaffirming the Grant Test in R v Reilly

When evidence is collected via conduct that violates an accused person’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982 Sched B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter], courts must analyze whether theevidence ought to be excluded as provided by s. 24(2) of the Charter. The s. 24(2) analysis was […]

Appeal Watch: Consecutive Ineligible Parole Periods Deemed Unconstitutional in Attorney General of Quebec, et al. v. Alexandre Bissonnette

*TRIGGER WARNING: This post has descriptions of violence that may be triggering to some readers* Since the abolition of the death penalty, the highest sentence a judge can prescribe to a criminal offender is a life sentence with a 25-year parole ineligibility period. Where there are multiple murder victims, under s. 745.51 of the Criminal […]

A New Standard for the Limitations Clock in Grant Thornton LLP v. New Brunswick

For novice and expert lawyers alike, the rules surrounding limitation of actions can be confusing. Generally, statutes of limitation across Canada limit the commencement of claims to within two years of discovering the claim. However, the question of what it means for a claim to be discovered, and whether common law rules of discoverability should […]

Deferring to the Jury in R v Waterman

Content Warning: This article includes depictions of sexual violence that may evoke strong emotions. Unique to criminal procedure in the common law system is the option to have a case tried before a jury.  When an appellate court is tasked with reviewing a decision made by a jury, they must act with caution not to […]

SCC Grants Leave to Appeal for Beaver Lake Cree Nation’s Advanced Legal Cost Claim in Anderson v Alberta (Attorney General)

In the last three decades, Indigenous nations have increasingly chosen to address systemic injustices facing their communities through litigation. However, as many Aboriginal law cases are complex and novel in nature, Indigenous nations had to bear the associated legal fees as the cases moved through Canadian courts. Anderson v Alberta (Attorney General), 2020 ABCA 238 […]