Consent: How the Growing Issue of Stealthing Needs to be Addressed - Jamie Robertson
The case of R v Kirkpatrick (“Kirkpatrick”) concerns an issue that is important to address and define: consent. What exactly does consent entail? Is it just the physical act between two people as found in R v Hutchinson at the Supreme Court of Canada, or is it more than that? Can you consent to sexual relations with someone but only with conditions such as using a condom? This is precisely the issue the courts are faced with in the case of Kirkpatrick.
Cell Phones and the Reasonable Expectation to Privacy - Thomas Mooney
The Supreme Court’s treatment of the privacy concerns inherent in an individual’s cell phone may demonstrate a worrying trend in the Court’s stance toward digital privacy and the state’s approach to cyber security.The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of R. v. Fearon demonstrates what is perhaps a disturbingly casual position on digital devices and our digital privacy as a whole. This case involved the seizure and search of a cell phone that yielded incriminating evidence.
Social Factors Affecting Voluntariness - Caitlin Madden
How does the court determine if something is truly voluntary? Are all individuals held to the same standard? This blog will focus on the case of R. v. Thomas, a 2022 decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal which deals with an analysis of whether a plea is voluntary. I will discuss the flaws in the Court’s approach and argue that a reasonable person test that considers the social factors of the accused should be used instead.
Police Powers in the Metaverse: Why the Charter’s Section 8 Will Have to Change - N.J. Peterman
Chief Justice Dickson famously advised in Hunter v Southam that section 8 of the Charter protects “people, not places.” With the concept of the metaverse on the rise, how will this apply to the internet as we know it? Like the internet, the emergence of the metaverse will have a profound impact on how our nation’s judiciary interprets s. 8 of the Charter, the right which provides everyone “to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”
Deterrence Under Section 24(2) of the Charter - Julian Brown
Nearly 700 years ago, the Spanish inquisitor Eymericus wrote in his interrogation manual: “Non refert quomodo veritas habeatur, dummodo habeatur,” which translates to “it does not matter by which methods truth has been obtained so long as it has been obtained.”This blog post will explore whether these words ring true today, or if developments in Canadian law such as section 24(2) of the Charter have a meaningful deterrent effect on police officers.
