Home »

Jennifer Laws

SCC Refuses to Extend Random Sobriety Stop Power to Private Property: R v McColman

Driving, as a licensed activity, carries certain limitations. Perhaps most important among them is the prohibition against driving while impaired. But the law cannot reach every corner of a person’s life. At a certain point, privacy interests come into play. To be a driver in Ontario is to drive a vehicle on a “highway”—that is, […]

Appeal Watch: SCC to Speak on Stereotypes and Common Sense in R v Tsang

Trial judges have a unique ability to assess evidence in a criminal trial: they see the witness, hear the testimony, and decide whether someone is believable. These findings are sometimes informed by intangibles, things that any person would struggle to articulate. Where a judge fails to articulate the evidence supporting a negative credibility finding, they […]

Entrapment and Bona Fide Internet Investigations: R v Ramelson, Jaffer, Haniffa, Dare

When the police investigate crime over the internet, they do so on a tightrope, perilously close to tumbling into privacy violation, random virtue testing, or worst of all, entrapment. At the end of 2022, in four related appeals, the Supreme Court of Canada considered these dangers and the validity of internet-based sting operations. The bulk […]

Relevance in Context: SCC decides R v Schneider

Trial judges play many roles, but one of their main tasks is determining what evidence is admissible. As a rule, all relevant evidence is admissible. But how do trial judges determine relevance, and what can they not take into account? This was the main question in R v Schneider, 2022 SCC 34 [Schneider], which the […]

A Right to be (Re)tried in a Reasonable Time: SCC Allows Appeal in R v JF

In the Canadian criminal justice system, an accused person has a constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has previously determined how long, exactly, is a presumptively “reasonable time.” But when a person is tried again for the same offence—an appeal court orders a new trial—how long, […]

Understanding the Right to Counsel: SCC Decides R v Lafrance

We’ve all seen a classic interrogation scene in movies or on TV. The police sit an accused person down, start asking questions, and hope he doesn’t “lawyer up.” What we understand from this is simple: once you ask for a lawyer, the police can’t interrogate you without your lawyer present. And, perhaps more importantly, everyone […]

No Still Means No: Clarifying the 5-4 Split in R v Kirkpatrick

At the end of July 2022, one message rang loud and clear across the country, straight from the Supreme Court: when it comes to consent, only yes means yes.  It was far from the first time that the SCC had said this or something like it. But this time, when the SCC released its decision […]

Sanctuary from Drunk Driving Sanctions: SCC to hear appeal in R v McColman

Does private property provide a sanctuary for drunk drivers and prevent the police from conducting sobriety checks? This issue split the Court of Appeal for Ontario (“ONCA”) in R v McColman, 2021 ONCA 382 [McColman]. On 3 February 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) granted leave to hear the appeal. Background In March 2016, […]

Anti-SLAPP Strikes Back: SCC Grants Leave to Appeal in Glen Hansman v Barry Neufeld

If one is engaged in public discourse, are comments that might damage another’s reputation protected? This is the question to be taken up in Glen Hansman v Barry Neufeld, SCC Case No. 39796, and a central concern of anti-SLAPP legislation, which seeks to strike a balance between protecting reputation and the value of rigorous debate. […]