Martin's Ontario Criminal Practice 2020 offers the most current and authoritative explanation of the rules of practice in Ontario's criminal justice system.
Martin's Ontario Criminal Practice offers the most current and authoritative explanation of the rules of practice in Ontario's criminal justice system, with:
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
- Forms on CD-ROM
New in this edition
Martin’s Ontario Criminal Practice, 2020 Edition includes:
R. v. Awashish, 2018 SCC 45 – According to the Supreme Court of Canada, certiorari in criminal proceedings may be available to parties only for a jurisdictional error by a provincial court judge, including instances where a court fails to observe a mandatory statutory provision and instances where the judge acts in breach of the principles of natural justice.
R. v. Magoon, 2018 SCC 14 – Where the accused was acquitted of first degree murder but convicted of second degree murder, the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction under s. 676 of the Criminal Code to hear a Crown Appeal from the acquittal on questions of law alone.
R. v. Gubbins, 2018 SCC 44 – The Supreme Court of Canada held the maintenance records of breathalyzer instruments were not subject to the first party disclosure regime under Stinchcombe, since they were not in possession or control of the Crown and since they were neither “fruits of the investigation” nor “obviously relevant” in this case. Further, they were not subject to third party disclosure under O’Connor, since they were shown not to be “likely relevant”.
R. v. Stipo, 2019 ONCA 3 – The Court of Appeal for Ontario held disclosure of the drug recognition expert’s rolling log, which comprehensively documents his or her historical evaluations, to be governed by the first party regime, after having found it to be “obviously relevant” to establishing his or her expertise in drug recognition.
York (Regional Municipality) v. McGuigan, 2018 ONCA 1062 – Given that defence counsel would be unable to challenge the reliability of the results of a speed measuring device without knowing the device’s testing and operating procedures, the Court of Appeal held these procedures to be “obviously relevant” and, thereby, subject to first party disclosure.
Forster v. Canada (Correctional Service), 2019 ONCA 91 – Ontario’s Court of Appeal distinguished the requirements underlying the criminal proceedings rule regarding summary dismissals as more onerous than its counterpart in civil proceedings. As a further point of contrast, the appellate court held the criminal rule to permit a court to dismiss summarily an application ex parte and without notice to the applicant.
R. v. Al-Masajidi, 2018 ONCA 305 – Evidence of the collateral immigration consequences of a sentence that were clearly relevant but not known at the time of sentencing could be admitted as fresh evidence on appeal, according to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.