Evidence Law

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.

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 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 […]

Confessions, Confidentiality and Consent: Re-Visiting Therapist-Client Privilege in R v Chatillon 

Content Warning: The facts of the case involve the mention of child sexual abuse.   In R v Chatillon, 2023 SCC 7 [Chatillon], the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") delivered a brief oral judgment re-visiting a case-by-case privilege in the context where a patient makes criminal admissions during the course of therapeutic treatment. A 6-1 […]

R v Clark: The Supreme Court upholds specialized jury instructions for eyewitness identification

Is eyewitness testimony subject to a special standard of jury instructions? In R v Clark, 2022 SCC 49, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) upheld the need for trial judges to provide Hibbert instructions upon eyewitness testimony that leads to an identification in court. In a unanimous oral judgement delivered by Justice Karakatsanis, the court […]

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 […]

Masked Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: R v Cowan is Granted Leave to the Supreme Court

An anonymous tip to Crime Stoppers points investigators toward a potential suspect that was involved in an armed robbery. However, what is the outcome when the robber was masked and the witnesses who testify are not, in the eyes of the trial judge, credible?

R v Slatter: Victory or Missed Opportunity for Rights of Women with Intellectual Disabilities?

[Content warning: this article contains discussion of sexual violence against women with disabilities]. When hearing the appeal in R v Slatter, 2019 ONCA 807 [Slatter (ONCA)], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) was presented with an opportunity to further the substantive equality rights of women with intellectual disabilities in the criminal justice system, and to […]

Groundhog Day: A Q&A with LEAF on the Recent Rape Shield Trilogy (Barton, Goldfinch and R(V))

R v Omar - Using Social Context to Inform Arbitrary Detention Rules