Home » Posts tagged 'Criminal Law'

Criminal Law

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]: R v McKee : Is Information of Police Misconduct First-Party Disclosure?

In R v McKee [41110], the Supreme Court (SCC) will decide whether a document in the possession of the Crown – containing information of police misconduct – obtained in respect of a unrelated investigation constitutes first-party disclosure automatically provided to the accused. This decision will likely turn on whether the Supreme Court adopts a narrow or broad […]

R v Stevenson: SCC upholds conviction on Vetrovec testimony

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has dismissed the appeal in R v Stevenson, 2024 SCC 41 [Stevenson], upholding a trial judge’s decision to convict based on the evidence of an unsavoury or Vetrovec witness. This case was heard by the SCC as of right from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (“SKCA”) 2024 SKCA 40 […]

R v Hanrahan: SCC Rejects Argument to Establish a Standard of “Clear and Unambiguous” for the Admission of Prior Sexual History

R v. Hanrahan, 2025 SCC 1 is a short oral decision —  a mere paragraph dismissing the Crown’s appeal against a sexual assault acquittal. The Supreme Court affirmed the Newfoundland Court of Appeal’s decision (R. v. Hanrahan, 2024 NLCA 9, “NLCA Decision”) and in doing so they affirmed deference to the trial judge’s factual findings […]

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 […]

APPEAL WATCH: Sentencing Specificity and Sexual Offences Against Children in R v Sheppard

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has granted leave [41126] to appeal the Alberta Court of Appeal’s (“ABCA”) decision in R v Sheppard, 2023 ABCA 381 [Sheppard]. The case will join R v Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 [Friesen] and R v Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26 [Bertrand Marchand] as further guidance on sentencing offenders who […]

Parliament Doesn’t Make Mistakes: Clarifying Driving Prohibitions in R v Wolfe

In R v Wolfe, 2024 SCC 34 [Wolfe], a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) ruled that driving prohibitions cannot be imposed upon conviction for driving-related criminal negligence. The decision closes a years-long, multi-court debate over the statutory interpretation of new driving offence provisions in the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 [Code].

R v Hodgson: The SCC on the Crown’s Limited Right to Appeal an Acquittal

In R v Hodgson, 2024 SCC 25 [Hodgson], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) unanimously rejected the Crown’s appeal of an acquittal for second degree murder and manslaughter. The case turns on the scope of the Crown’s limited right to appeal acquittals under section 676(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 [Criminal Code]. […]

Clarifying Corroborative Evidence and Hearsay: R v Charles

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) in R v Charles, 2024 SCC 29 [Charles] has clarified the approach to using corroborative evidence to establish the reliability of hearsay evidence. Moreau J, writing for the majority, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the basis that an out-of-court statement by a witness at trial […]

R v Kruk: Bringing Sense Back to Common-Sense Assumptions

In R v Kruk, 2024 SCC 7 [Kruk], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) rejected the “rule against common-sense assumptions,” affirming the importance and necessity of trial judges’ common-sense reasoning to their credibility assessments. This decision is significant for two reasons: (1) it sets out the narrow role that myths and stereotypes as legal errors […]