

Known Third Party Suspect & Circumstantial Evidence
In R v Biya[ii], Abadula Biya appealed his conviction and sentence for the charges of unauthorized possession of a firearm, ammunition, possession of a Schedule I controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of the proceeds of crime. Biya sought to appeal his case based on the trial judge’s decision to reject Biya’s defence based on the evidence of a known third-party suspect. Biya claimed the reasoning from the trial judge’s decision resulted in a mis


Victims and Rights in Canada - a Podcast
Amy and Georgia from Robson Hall discuss the evolution of victims' rights in Canada, highlighting historical exclusion and recent advancements. They explain how victims' rights have shifted from being nearly invisible to formally recognized, though still with limited enforcement. Key developments include the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), provincial Victims' Bills of Rights, and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (2015)
![Indigenous Oral History as Evidence: Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (AG) [2022]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/8ed71a_e3ec590f9ead4282bfd9b42c9b2df7e6~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_250,h_250,fp_0.50_0.50,q_30,blur_30,enc_avif,quality_auto/8ed71a_e3ec590f9ead4282bfd9b42c9b2df7e6~mv2.webp)
![Indigenous Oral History as Evidence: Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (AG) [2022]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/8ed71a_e3ec590f9ead4282bfd9b42c9b2df7e6~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_634,h_634,fp_0.50_0.50,q_90,enc_avif,quality_auto/8ed71a_e3ec590f9ead4282bfd9b42c9b2df7e6~mv2.webp)
Indigenous Oral History as Evidence: Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (AG) [2022]
Since Delgamuukwi, the oral histories of Indigenous peoples have been recognized as being put on “an equal footing” with documentary evidence.ii Oral history is a means to transmit information orally to record history and preserve Indigenous knowledge.iii The Cowichaniv case was a voir dire to determine the threshold reliability of the oral history evidence of Grant, Guerin and Chief Wayne Sparrow and to allow them to testify without interruption.


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.




