Criminal justice

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 S.B.: Accountability, Youth Sentencing, and the Limits of Social Context

The Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”) decision in R. v. S.B., 2025 SCC 24 [S.B.] engages critical questions regarding the Youth Criminal Justice Act’s (“YCJA”) framework for imposing adult sentences on young offenders. The role of social context evidence is central when evaluating whether the Crown successfully rebutted the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness under section 72(1) of the YCJA. This appeal tests the boundaries of how youth courts weigh personal and systemic circumstances against the judgement and maturity displayed through the planning of criminal conduct.

Truth vs. Fairness in Sentencing: Lessons from R v Di Paola

In the decision of R v Di Paola, 2025 SCC 31 the Supreme Court of Canada examined how s. 725(1)(c) of the Criminal Code should be interpreted during sentencing. The issue was whether a sentencing judge may consider, as aggravating factors, facts that could constitute a separate offence when that charge has already been laid but is no longer pending and has no rendered verdict. The Court’s decision clarifies both the scope of this provision and the Crown’s duty of fairness in presenting aggravating facts during sentencing.

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 JW: Programming-Based Sentencing, “Wrongful Conduct,” and Enhanced Credit

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v JW addresses two intertwined controversies in Canadian sentencing law. First, it clarifies whether—and how—a sentencing judge may take account of the time an offender is likely to need to complete institutional programming when setting a custodial term. Second, it refines the meaning of “wrongful conduct” for the purpose of denying enhanced pre-sentence credit under s 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code.

Texting Impersonations: SCC Weighs Digital Privacy in R v Campbell

In R v. Campbell, 2024 SCC 42 (“Campbell”), the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) weighed in on whether the police had lawful authority to use the cellphone of a drug dealer without a warrant to continue a text message conversation with an alleged drug distributor. In a 6-3 split, the SCC held that while there was a violation of section 8 of the Charter and Rights and Freedoms [“Charter”], the warrantless search of Mr. Campbell was justified under the exigent circumstances exception outlined in section 11(7) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (“CDSA”).

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 […]

R. v. T.J.F.: When does evidence of violence give rise to an inference of exploitation?

In many jurisdictions, the state has no right of appeal against the acquittal of an accused at trial. This is not so in Canada, where the Attorney General may appeal an acquittal on questions of law. In R. v. T.J.F, 2024 SCC 38 [“T.J.F.”], the Supreme Court of Canada allowed a Crown appeal of an […]

Taking Another Kick at the Causation Can in R v BF

What is the causal line between attempted murder and aiding suicide? The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) will grapple with this issue as it has granted leave [41420] to appeal the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s (“ONCA”) decision in R v BF, 2024 ONCA 511 [BF]. At issue before the court will be the interplay […]