Robson Crim Legal Blog

In the relatively recent and arguably confusing Supreme Court decision of R v Morrison, the constitutionality of s 172 of the Criminal Code was at issue. The respondent, Douglas Morrison, was charged with child luring contrary to s 172 of the Code. Interestingly enough, the facts of Morrison are enough to fuel a made-for-TV movie.

R v Jordan was heard on July 8th, 2016 and has significantly changed the practice of criminal law. With any significant change, there are still growing pains. The issues regarding delay and the timeline ceilings in Jordan raise more questions than it answers.One of those issues was recently addressed in R v KJM, 2019 SCC 55. KJM addresses the issue of whether or not the Jordan 18-month ceiling and the presumption of unreasonable delay was also applicable in youth justice cour

There are systemic issues in the Canadian bail system that need to be addressed. Although the courts maintain that “the release of accused persons is the cardinal rule and detention, the exception”[1], on an average day 62% of adults in provincial or territorial custody are in remand, not sentenced custody. Manitoba has the second highest proportion of adults in custody in remand at 69%.This high proportion of detainees who are presumed innocent suggests a fundamental problem

The ancillary powers doctrine arises in Canadian law in R v Dedman which states that “statute law is not the only source of legal authority for police powers and that in particular circumstances, the common law may “provide a legal basis for carefully defined powers.”

Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees every Canadian the right to be tried in a reasonable time. In 2016, this so-called “reasonable time” was given an 18 to 30 month ceiling in R v. Jordan , a case in which section 11(b) was invoked. Any trial expected to exceed the ceiling established in Jordan could therefore be considered unreasonable and, in turn, a violation of section 11(b).