Evidence
Breach of the Peace: ONCA Addresses Police Power to Arrest in Fleming v Ontario
Tensions can run high during political demonstrations, and police are often deployed to monitor the situation and prevent an escalating conflict. In doing so, police have a common law power to arrest individuals when they believe an arrest may prevent a breach of the peace without the requirement that police believe that the person being […]
R v Fedyck: A Question of Evidence
In R v Fedyck, 2019 SCC 3 [Fedyck], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) convicted a firefighter for theft under $5,000. The case touched on questions of admissible evidence in a criminal trial, but did not satisfactorily answer them. The SCC simply agreed 5-0 with the majority opinion of the Manitoba Court of Appeal (“MBCA”), […]
Bad Blood? R v Culotta Addresses Admissibility of Admissibility of Blood Samples Obtained by Health Care Professionals
Introduction Often, the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") issues reasons for their decisions without writing a lengthy judgment of its own. It is easy to overlook these cases as unimportant and inconsequential, as the SCC itself simply adopted the decision of a lower court. The recent case R v Culotta, 2019 SCC 33 [R v […]
R v Gubbins Introduces Evidentiary Hurdles for Those Charged with Driving Over 80
Introduction When a breathalyzer is prepared for use by a police officer, it performs a series of internal and external diagnostic tests to ensure the accuracy of the results of the tests. After the breath samples are taken, the breathalyzer machine prints the results of the diagnostic tests, which are later provided to the accused […]
Sexual Assault Myths Back on Trial in R v Goldfinch
Myths about sexual assault complainants are back on trial. The Alberta Court of Appeal [“ABCA”] recently issued two decisions – R v Goldfinch, 2018 ABCA 240 [Goldfinch] and R v Barton, 2017 ABCA 216 [Barton] – that may change Canada's law of evidence regarding when complainants’ prior sexual history may be admitted in sexual assault […]
R v Barton: Do “Rape Shield” Laws Apply in First Degree Murder Cases?
Author's Note: This article and the linked case discuss sexual violence and violence against women that may be upsetting to readers. Introduction Myths and stereotypes about consent, women’s sexuality, and sexual assault are very much alive and well within criminal proceedings. In an attempt to mitigate the ill effects of these stereotypes, Parliament has enacted […]
Vancouver Airport Authority v Commissioner of Competition: “Public Interest” Privilege Comes Crashing Down to Earth
“Privilege” is a common-law doctrine that prevents the compulsory disclosure of documents or information that is against the public interest. As Justice L’Heureux-Dubé explains: The doctrine of privilege acts as an exception to the truth-finding process of our adversarial trial procedure. Although all relevant information is presumptively admissible at trial, some probative and trustworthy evidence […]
Risky Business: R v George & Reckoning with Age of Consent Laws
In 2011 in Saskatchewan, the complainant C.D. was 14 years old, although according to the evidentiary record he looked older (R v George, 2017 SCC 38 at para 10 [“SCC”]). He engaged in intimate activity with George, a 35-year-old female acquaintance. C.D. never complained to the authorities about the sexual encounter; rather, it came onto […]