Young Offenders and the Automatic Right to Appeal to the SCC - A.T.
Is section 37(10) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) constitutional? The following blog will discuss the decision of R. v. C.P. as it relates to the constitutionality of section 37(10) of the YCJA. R. v. C.P. is an appeal brought forth by a young person from a guilty finding on the ground that the finding was unreasonable.[1] It is also an appeal that challenges the constitutionality of section 37(10) of the YCJA.[2] The facts of the case are as follows. When C.P. was 1
Consent: How the Growing Issue of Stealthing Needs to be Addressed - Jamie Robertson
Case and Relevant Criminal Code Section Discussion The case of R v Kirkpatrick (“Kirkpatrick”) concerns an issue that is important to address and define: consent. What exactly does consent entail? Is it just the physical act between two people as found in R v Hutchinson at the Supreme Court of Canada, or is it more than that?[1] Can you consent to sexual relations with someone but only with conditions such as using a condom? This is precisely the issue the courts are faced wi
Cell Phones and the Reasonable Expectation to Privacy - Thomas Mooney
The Supreme Court’s treatment of the privacy concerns inherent in an individual’s cell phone may demonstrate a worrying trend in the Court’s stance toward digital privacy and the state’s approach to cyber security. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of R. v. Fearon demonstrates what is perhaps a disturbingly casual position on digital devices and our digital privacy as a whole.[1] This case involved the seizure and search of a cell phone that yielded incriminating evide
Social Factors Affecting Voluntariness - Caitlin Madden
How does the court determine if something is truly voluntary? Are all individuals held to the same standard? This blog will focus on the case of R. v. Thomas, a 2022 decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal which deals with an analysis of whether a plea is voluntary. I will discuss the flaws in the Court’s approach and argue that a reasonable person test that considers the social factors of the accused should be used instead. In the case at hand, the accused asserted that due
Police Powers in the Metaverse: Why the Charter’s Section 8 Will Have to Change - N.J. Peterman
Chief Justice Dickson famously advised in Hunter v Southam that section 8 of the Charter protects “people, not places.”[1] With the concept of the metaverse on the rise, how will this apply to the internet as we know it? Like the internet, the emergence of the metaverse will have a profound impact on how our nation’s judiciary interprets s. 8 of the Charter, the right which provides everyone “to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”[2] Standing as more of a conce
