Stay Away from the Grey: Rethinking How Courts Should Approach the Issue of Consent in Sports
As entertaining as sports can be, it comes as no surprise that the world of sports can be gruesome and violent. Of course, this toughness and violence can be ingrained in sports culture, but what complications arise when it intersects with criminal liability? This can lead to issues of balancing the violent nature of sports with criminal liability and the implications that may arise from it.
Behind Closed Doors and Locked Phones? Navigating the Admissibility of Past Sexual History as Evidence in R v Kinamore
In a digital age where text messages and screenshots can sometimes speak to the case at hand, more so than testimony, R v Kinamore tests and challenges the extent to which digital interactions may be used as evidence when the content may be prejudicial. R v Kinamore dives into the unclear waters of evidentiary admissibility when assessing messages, sexual history—and, most importantly, the lack thereof, and whether such evidence should be placed before the trier of fact.
Protective Detention or Constitutional Problem? Bill 48 and the Section 7 Case Against Manitoba's 72-Hour Detox Law
In November 2025, Manitoba became the first province in Canada to authorize 72 hours of involuntary detention for intoxicated individuals, tripling the previous limit with near-unanimous legislative support. Bill 48, The Protective Detention and Care of Intoxicated Persons Act, passed through the legislature quickly, but the constitutional questions it raises will not resolve as easily.
Where Law Meets Limitations: The Roles and Boundaries of Trial Judges in the Development of the Common Law
There is no question that historically, women and men have been hesitant to come forward and report sexual offences. These victims are afraid to come forward because of the fear of not being believed, fear of retribution, and fear of the criminal justice system and its methods. However, in the past few decades, the combined efforts of Parliament and the common law have helped to bridge some of the gaps that perpetuate these fears.
Time Versus Evidence: Do Time Restrictions on NCRDM Applications Change Expert Witness Decisions?
In R. v Landrick [2022] BCCA 181, the appeal hinges on new expert evidence with the application of a “Not Criminally Responsible due to Mental Disability” (NCRMD) application. While an application for an NCRMD assessment is generally used as a defence during an original trial, there are instances where it can be used on appeal. The explanation given by the appeal Judge in this case calls attention to how limited time to receive an NCRMD assessment can impact expert witnesses
