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
The “Perfect” Victim: The Reliance on Demeanour Evidence in Child Sexual Abuse Cases
Several factors must be considered when assessing the credibility of a witness or victim during a trial, one of which is their demeanour. Demeanour evidence is behavioural observations made by either the trier of fact or jury during witness testimony. Triers of fact analyze a witness’s demeanour for sincerity and honesty in determining credibility.
Similar Fact Evidence and the Defence of Consent: A Principled Application of R v. Handy in R v. Cyrus
The admissibility of similar fact evidence presents a persistent challenge in Canadian evidence law, particularly in sexual assault prosecutions where credibility assessments are often central. Evidence of an accused’s other discreditable conduct is presumptively inadmissible due to the risk of propensity reasoning and the resulting moral and reasoning prejudice. Nevertheless, such evidence may be admitted.
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
