Anti-South Asian Hate Online in Canada
Canada on the international stage has always portrayed itself to be welcoming to newcomers. However, this is not the reality for many Indians and other South Asians living in Canada. Anti-South Asian sentiment on social media has become increasingly visible. Every person in Canada has the right to free speech. However, this right is subject to certain restrictions. So, one could ask: How far can a joke go before someone is offended? And can that offence be criminalized?
Confession by Design: Mr. Big Operations and the Exploitation of Vulnerability
Confessions carry significant weight in this system. They are intuitively persuasive and often treated by triers of fact as powerful admissions of guilt, even where contextual or coercive factors may be present. Given the natural inclination toward guilty verdicts in the face of such admissions, judicial actors have paid considerable attention to developing safeguards to regulate how confessions are obtained. These protections, Mr. Big Operations (MBO) skillfully evade any sa
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 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
