Applying Gladue Principles to Corbett Applications in R v King: A New Safeguard for Indigenous Accused Persons?
In R v Hart, Cromwell JA stated that the cross-examination process is a “cornerstone of the adversarial trial process… [and that] it is an important vehicle for the discovery of truth.”[1] As such, if an accused person chooses to testify,[2] their testimony can be subjected to a cross-examination by Crown counsel.[3] The cross-examination process is ultimately “a fundamental feature of a fair trial.”[4] It is intended to produce evidence in relation to the credibility of an i
When the End Doesn’t Justify the Means:Voluntariness Issues and Unreliable Expert Witness Testimony in R v Doyle 2003
In 1996, while dancing at home with his girlfriend’s infant son, Tyler, in his arms, twenty-three-year-old Bernard Doyle tripped and fell. Tyler fell on construction tools that were scattered around the floor of the apartment, with Mr. Doyle landing on top of him. In spite of immediately receiving medical attention, Tyler’s injuries were too severe; he died in the hospital the next day. Mr. Doyle was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.
Hearsay Evidence in R. v. Papasotiriou-Lanteigne
The case R. v. Papasotiriou-Lanteigne provides a detailed examination of the admissibility of hearsay evidence, with a particular focus on the principle of threshold liability. In 2018, the defendants were convicted of first-degree murder by a jury in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice. As the case proceeded to appeal in October of 2022, the trial judge revisited his decision to admit hearsay evidence presented by the defence.
