Reforming Gladue: A Call for Judicial Accountability in Sentencing Indigenous Offenders
The legacy of the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1999 decision in R v Gladue remains part of Canadian law today. The “Gladue principles” arise from section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, which was enacted to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in Canadian prisons.Despite the adoption of section 718.2(e), Indigenous people remain drastically overrepresented in Canadian prisons. This demonstrates the need for meaningful reform.
The Scope of Confidential Informer Privilege: When Does Informer Privilege Protect Information?
Privileges in Canadian law are aimed at preventing the disclosure of certain information during trials and hearings that could affect their outcome. Confidential informer privilege is a type of privilege that, as outlined in R v Basi, “prohibits disclosure of the identity of confidential informants.”[i] Cases like Basi expanded on the common law principles of informer privilege. Informer privilege is possibly the most protected privilege in Canadian law that is subject to a s
The Lindsay Clancy Case: Looked at from Canada - What a Child-Rights Lens Requires Us to See
The notorious case of Lindsay Clancy forces us to contemplate something almost unbearable: a mother can love her children and still become the person from whom they most urgently need protection. Public discussion has largely divided into three camps. One emphasizes the children and demands accountability. Another emphasizes the mother, concerning itself with Clancy’s mental illness and the systemic failure to help her. A third is fomenting conspiracy theories about the fathe
The Duty to Inform and its Impact on Fairness: R v Tessier and R v Tayo Tompouba
Judges and police officers are held to a higher standard, expected to uphold fairness and apply discretion with integrity. Yet, when they fail to inform individuals of their rights, the fairness of the entire judicial process is called into question.
This tension lies at the core of R v Tessier (2022 SCC 35) and R v Tayo Tompouba (2024 SCC 16).
Reassessing Principal Exception of Hearsay: The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) Clarifies the Threshold of Reliability in R v Charles
Truth in a criminal court is often delivered second-hand. Truth is mentioned through stories, vague statements, whispers, and recollections. But what happens when those second-hand truths are considered admissible without ever being tested? R v Charles compelled the courts to confront this question. The case examines whether a witness’s out-of-court statement possessed indicia of reliability and whether the evidence is considered admissible if the witness cannot recall the st
