“Third one’s the charm”? – not when it comes to experts!
Provincially, legislation such as The Manitoba Evidence Act sets the limit of expert witnesses to three per side. Legislators that bring in such provisions would have us believe that this is done in the name of efficiency, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness, but, in fact, it puts lawyers and their clients in a difficult bind. Expert limits increase the risks of unethical decision-making in the name of efficiency and might altogether be more costly and time-consuming for the l
(When) Can Artificial Intelligence be Criminally Responsible?
It sounds like the setup for a sci-fi thriller: a machine commits a crime. Who goes on trial—the robot, its programmer, or no one at all? This isn’t just science fiction anymore. With AI systems shaping everything from what we buy to what we believe, and with chatbots being blamed in tragic cases, the question is moving from Hollywood into the courtroom: when, if ever, can artificial intelligence be criminally responsible?
“Excluding Evidence or Upholding Convictions? The Fine Line in R v Tim
S. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is designed to allow for courts to exclude evidence that is obtained illegally and is a fundamental violation of a citizen's rights. However, R v Tim, a 2022 SCC case involving the validity of a conducted search, blurs the line on this right in some lenses. Although there was an admission of an illegal search, the SCC ruled to uphold the conviction regardless, as the violation was not done in a reckless manner.
Evaluating the Constitutionality of the Customs Act and Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in R v Scott
Author: NA Electronic devices contain a cache of information including an individual’s beliefs, relationships, and lifestyle. As...
‘Sexts’ as Evidence of Future Likelihood to Consent: Implications of R v Reimer
Sexual assault cases present uniquely challenging evidentiary issues due to the threat of prejudicial reasoning against the complainant. While Parliament and the courts have settled on a progressive legal framework to reflect these concerns, the application of these laws can vary considerably where the evidence suggests an intention of the complainant to consent.Recently, the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in R v Reimer recognized that a complainant’s past sexual relation
