

IP Addresses - Do Police Have a Right to Use as Evidence?
The internet has become part of our everyday life in today’s society. Browsing the internet for hours at a time is not an uncommon practice. When someone uses the internet, they leave their fingerprint in the form of an Internet Protocol Address (IP Address). “An IP address is a string of numbers assigned to an internet-connected device. Think of it like an address on a house. Your computer network uses the IP address to communicate with other computers, websites, and all par


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
![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.




