Recent Supreme Court of Canada and Court of Appeal Cases include the following:
- R. v. Cameron (ABCA) — Section 13 of the Charter applies to sworn testimony provided in an earlier proceeding, but not to an unsworn Agreed Statement of Facts filed in that proceeding – the accused may later be cross-examined on the latter without infringing section 13 rights.
- R. v. Darnley (ONCA) — A reasonable doubt need not be drawn from the facts — it rests on the inability to conclude guilt.
- R. v. Fucile (ABCA) — If an agreement about a fact or evidence were ambiguous, the judge should ask the parties what they had intended.
- R. v. Joseph (ONCA) — The standard, “reasonable grounds for believing that the young person has committed an offence”, requires the officer to have had a subjective belief that was objectively reasonable in the circumstances.
- R. v. Lichtenwald (SKCA) — Absent evidence that an arresting officer had requested a suspect’s name and address for investigative, rather than for merely administrative, purposes, seeking the identity of the arrested suspect does not constitute a breach of s. 10(b) of the Charter.
- R. v. Moores (NLCA) — The accused’s denial of a criminal record translated to evidence of good character — with evidence adduced that had put character into issue, the Crown was allowed to cross-examine on prior misconduct by the accused.
- R. v. Pawar (BCCA) — A finding of “good faith” requires that the officer’s belief in the lawfulness of his or her conduct be both honest and reasonable.
- R. v. Phan (ONCA) — To obtain leave to cross-examine the affiant, the accused must establish a reasonable likelihood that the proposed cross-examination would yield probative evidence that discredits a material precondition to the granting of the warrant or that shows significant police misconduct in securing the authority to search.
- R. v. Sandeson (NSCA) — A judge’s choice of remedy under subs. 24(1) of the Charter is discretionary — only if the judge had misdirected himself or herself in law, had committed a reviewable error of fact, or had rendered a decision so clearly wrong to be tantamount to an injustice, would appellate intervention be warranted.
- R. v. Slatter (SCC) — Rather than prefer expert evidence that attributes general characteristics to a witness with an intellectual or developmental disability, courts should focus on his or her veracity and actual abilities to perceive, recall and recount the events in issue.
- R. v. Wu (BCCA) — After counsel at trial made the strategic choice not to pursue a possible avenue of expert evidence on an issue, the court of appeal should generally be reluctant to allow fresh evidence on that issue.
- R. v. Zoe (NWTCA) — A judge’s findings of fact based on eyewitness identification evidence should only warrant appellate intervention if there were a palpable and overriding error.
About Thomson Reuters ProView
ProView is the way to read Thomson Reuters eBooks and eLooseleafs, published primarily for legal, accounting, human resources, and tax professions. The Thomson Reuters ProView web-based application is accessed via your browser. With the new ProView web app, offline capability is now available from your browser. The web application has a responsive design and is compatible with desktop, laptop and mobile devices.