Evidence

R v Pan and the Price of Fairness: An “Air of Reality” in A Complex Jury Trial

In R v Pan, the Supreme Court of Canada has addressed the scope of the “air of reality” test as it applies to included offences in jury trials. The majority has upheld the Ontario Court of Appeal’s verdict that Jennifer Pan should undergo a new trial regarding her initial first-degree murder charge, but maintained her conviction related to the attempted murder charge. Furthermore, the Court determined that the trial judge erred by failing to leave lesser included offences, such as second-degree murder or manslaughter, to the jury where there was a realistic possibility of conviction on those offences.

R v Larocque: The Presumption of Accuracy Meets the Presumption of Innocence

The Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”) decision in R v Larocque, 2025 SCC 36 [Larocque] addresses the scope of the evidentiary shortcuts available to the Crown in impaired driving prosecutions. Specifically, the SCC clarified what must be proven before the statutory presumption that breath test results are accurate can apply and whether the “target value” […]

Who Decides What the Jury Decides? R v BF and the Air-of-Reality Threshold

On December 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R v BF, restoring a conviction for attempted murder and rejecting the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s holding that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury sufficiently on a potential defence. In doing so, the SCC engaged with a fundamental question arising in the case: whether there was any air of reality to the theory that, rather than attempted murder, the accused was aiding a suicide attempt.

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.

APPEAL WATCH: SCC to Determine the Use of Compelled Accident Statements in Korduner

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal the decision in R v Korduner, a split decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal that examines the extent of use immunity for statutorily compelled statements. In particular, the SCC may wish to examine whether a statement given by a motorist who has an honest and reasonably held belief that they are statutorily compelled can be used as the reasonable grounds necessary to compel an evidentiary breath test pursuant to s.320.28 of the Criminal Code.

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 Jaser and the Supreme Court’s Silence on National Security Appeals

In August 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear Raed Jaser’s latest appeal in the high-profile terrorism prosecution arising from the 2013 VIA Rail plot. As is customary in leave to appeal decisions, no reasons were provided.

Kohli v Thom: Relocation, Family Violence, and the Limits of Income Imputation

In Kohli v Thom, the Court of Appeal for Ontario tackled two recurring flashpoints in modern family litigation: (1) whether a parent who has survived intimate-partner violence may relocate with a young child over the objection of the other parent; and (2) how a court should treat the survivor’s earning capacity when assessing child and spousal support.

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 […]