“Third one’s the charm”? – not when it comes to experts!
“Justice delayed is justice denied.” This legal maxim haunts the Canadian legal system, where court resources are thin and delays result in hundreds of cases being stayed (i.e., discontinued as continuation would bring the judicial system into disrepute).In response to this, legislatures are bringing in limits on how many expert witnesses or reports may be brought into a lawsuit. For example, section 7 of the Canada Evidence Act limits each party.
R v Burkhard: The Dangers of Misidentifying Prior Consistent Statements by J Peterson
Prior consistent statements are presumptively inadmissible. There are a number of rationales served by this rule, including protection against fabrication, the danger of statements that cannot be cross-examined, the fallacy that repetition makes a story more trustworthy, and the objective of trial efficiency. However, there are a number of recognized exceptions to this rule including providing a consistent narrative, addressing inconsistencies, and rebutting allegations of re
Evaluating the Constitutionality of the Customs Act and Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in R v Scott by N Ashford
Electronic devices contain a cache of information including an individual’s beliefs, relationships, and lifestyle. As technology continues to evolve and become increasingly intimate, the law has remained stagnant. R v Scott addressed several issues, including the right to counsel and sentencing, this case analysis will focus on the breach of the appellant’s section 8 Charter rights by officers acting under section 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act to authorize the search of digital
Spousal Privilege in the Digital Era: Where Privacy Ends and Evidence Begins by V Rajput
In the intricate world of legal proceedings, the concept of privilege plays a crucial role in determining what evidence can be presented in court. When evidence is deemed privileged, it is considered inadmissible in legal contexts, preserving confidentiality in specific relationships. Among the various types of privilege, spousal privilege, as outlined in s. 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act. R v Fayaz raises important questions about the limits of spousal privilege.
‘Sexts’ as Evidence of Future Likelihood to Consent: Implications of R v Reimer by C Bellows
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.R v Reimer recognized that a complainant’s past sexual relations may be relevant to the issue of consent.
