Warrantless Searches of Personal Electronic Devices and the Admissibility of Evidence: Constitutional Limits Under the Customs Act
As society grows increasingly reliant on technology and digital systems, the use of personal electronic devices (PEDs) has become the primary means of storing personal data. While advances in technology have enhanced convenience in the digital age, they also raise complex legal challenges in criminal law and evidentiary rules governing searches and seizures at ports of entry. To what extent do travellers have a right to privacy?
Whispered Words and Weighty Consequences: The Supreme Court’s Expansive View of Hearsay in R v Schneider
If anyone can repeat something they claim to have heard—without tangible proof, recording, or corroboration—what separates fact from hearsay? In cases as grave as murder, where the consequence can be a life sentence of imprisonment, admitting sources of recollection as proof of guilt invites doubt not only about the verdict but about the Court’s commitment to the standard of proof that defines criminal justice itself.
Policing Protest: Who Gets to Break the Law?
The criminalization of peaceful protests as violent conduct has become an increasingly concerning issue in Canada. The imposition of criminal language on protest action delegitimizes activism by framing it as violence, and in turn legitimizes police intervention against activists. The legal and rhetorical criminalization of protest, how the justice system redefines democratic participation as disorder and the proportionality between protest tactics and injustice they challeng
R v Parks: Defence of Automatism and Public Safety
It is almost unimaginable that a seemingly normal family man would attack and be charged with the murder of his mother-in-law and the attempted murder of his father-in-law. It is even more unimaginable that the accused in such a crime would be found not guilty by relying on the defence of automatism. This is what occurred in the R v Parks decision, where in 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) found the respondent, Kenneth Parks, to be not guilty for attacking his parents
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. The decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) in R v King adds an additional layer of protection for accused persons of Indigenous ancestry. The newfound precedential impact of R v King, as it relates to the Corbett applications of Indigenous accused persons, is ultimately the subject of i
