

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.


The Dominic Ongwen Trial at the International Criminal Court
The International Criminal Court (ICC) recently delivered its verdict in the Dominic Ongwen trial. The trial received quite a bit of attent


Judges & the Weight of their Words
Unfortunately, in many of the decisions in sexual assault cases the reasons that some trial judges have relied on are completely unsavoury and flat out rude and false. They add insult to injury by giving breath to the twin-myth reasoning that is rampant in sexual assault cases and try to blend stereotypes about women into the law.


Barton, the Twin Myths & the Defence of Honest but Mistaken Belief in Communicated Consent
At the heart of sexual assault cases is the presence or absence of consent, and whether the consent was freely given. Unfortunately, this defence often relies on the complainant’s prior sexual activities and can make trial for sexual assault victims an even more humiliating and demeaning experience then it needs to be. This defence often relies upon the twin myth reasoning, which is the idea that complainants with a prior sexual history are firstly more likely to have consent


DLW: A Hesitant Court – A Comment on the Canadian Judiciary’s Attitude Towards Bestiality
Generally, bestiality is a topic that one would normally avoid bringing up at dinner parties, in casual conversation or anywhere, really. Bestiality, which refers to a human engaging in sex with an animal, is a topic that is so unsavoury and so revolting, that even the mere mention of it normally elicits a look of horror from the most strong-stomached individual. It is no surprise that, historically, legislators, the judiciary, and the public have not been particularly keen t




