Martin's Ontario Criminal Practice, 2021 Edition
Table of contents
Table of content not available at this time
Index not available at this time
Release notes not available at this time
Details and specs
It includes a comprehensive review of:
- Criminal Appeal Rules
- Criminal Proceedings Rules of the Superior Court of Justice (annotated)
- Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice in Criminal Proceedings (annotated)
- Provincial Offences Act (relevant sections and regulations, annotated)
- Regulations governing appeals under the Provincial Offences Act
Value-added features include:
- Expanded case law
- Ontario Review Board Rules of Procedure
- An updated list of courts, agencies, and ministries organized by region
- Concordance with cross references to the former rules followed by the Administrative Guidelines of the Ontario Court of Appeal
Whats New in this edition includes:
R. v. DAmico, 2019 SCC 23 - A dissent within the meaning of s. 691(1)(a) of the Criminal Code means a disagreement that affects the result. In a case where the disagreement at the Court of Appeal did not go to the result and was better characterized as a concurring opinion or an opinion concurring in the result, the applicant must serve and file an application for leave to appeal.
R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33, 376 C.C.C. (3d) 1 - In R. v. Barton, the Supreme Court held that appellate intervention was clearly justified due to a series of glaring, serious legal errors in a critical part of the jury charge, which had a material bearing on the verdicts. Failure to intervene would have risked an injustice. The Court was satisfied that the appropriate balance was struck, and that the case was one of the rare cases in which a provincial appellate court was entitled, and even required to raise an issue of its own motion.
R. v. Park,  2 S.C.R. 64; R. v. D.A.R., 2012 NSCA 31, 314 N.S.R. (2d) 331; R. v. J.H., 2020 ONCA 165 - An express waiver by counsel of the necessity for an admissibility inquiry and an admission that the evidence is admissible may dispense with the need for an inquiry. However, dependent on the circumstances of the case, the failure to conduct an admissibility inquiry may amount to a procedural error capable of vitiating a conviction.
R. v. J.H., 2020 ONCA 165 - In jury trials, the prevailing practice in Ontario is to have applications on the admissibility of evidence heard and determined in advance of jury selection.
Gajewski (Re), 2020 ONCA 4 - In Gajewski (Re), the complainant sought leave to intervene in an appeal from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board under Rules 23 and 38(3) of the Criminal Appeal Rules and r. 13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellant had been found not criminally responsible after attacking the complainant while suffering from a delusional disorder. At the appellants annual review hearing, the Ontario Review Board unanimously rejected the Crowns request to impose a geographical boundary restriction during the appellants supervised entry to the community, but maintained the condition requiring him to refrain from contacting or knowingly attending within 500 metres of the complainant and others. The Court of Appeal denied the complainants motion to intervene in the appeal. There was no basis on which to grant the complainant leave to intervene and that it would be unfair to the appellant to do so. The Criminal Code already provides a mechanism for the complainant to have a voice in the sentencing stage through a victim impact statement. Furthermore, her concerns were articulated by the Crown before the Board and the Board articulated sound reasons as to why a moving restriction would be more efficacious than a geographic one. Where there is a concern regarding whether or not the Board has carried out its mandate effectively, it is the Crowns responsibility to speak for the community.
R. v. Becker Bros. Trucking Inc., 2020 ONCA 316, 2020 CarswellOnt
- Practice Area:
- Publication Date:
- Hardcover Specifications
- Service #:
- Sub #:
- Shelf Space:
- Anticip Unkeep Cost:
- eBook Specifications