“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
Applying Gladue Principles to Corbett Applications in R v King: A New Safeguard for Indigenous Accused Persons?
Defence counsel may prepare what is known as a Corbett application which prohibits the extent or use of the accused’s “record of conviction in cross-examination” to limit attacks against their credibility. While in the past some safeguards have been developed and used to prevent the misuse of a criminal record as evidence of guilt against the accused during cross-examination, the recent 2022 decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) in R v King adds an additional layer o
When Privacy Prevails Over the Admission of Evidence
This blog will explain the importance of privacy and dignity in criminal law, particularly in relation to the experiences of complainants, as illustrated in this case. In R. v. J.J., the Court showed that a defendant's right to a fair trial must be balanced with the privacy of complainants, provided that the defendant's right to a full answer and defense are ensured and maintained.
