Articles 2019

This month from the Ontario Court of Appeal: Crown references to inadmissible evidence in an opening address, jurisdiction to award costs after a Crown stay, and what happens when you try youth and adult cases together.

[Almost] everything you need to know about the latest Supreme Court of Canada criminal law decisions, in six words or less.

This month from the Ontario Court of Appeal: drinking enough to be dangerous but not impaired, using God to bolster a witness's credibility (don't try it), and getting extra credit — or not — for harsh pre-sentence custody.

After an extended summer hiatus, your favourite truncated review service returns. Catching you up on the Supreme Court of Canada's offerings in digestible fashion: All SCC Criminal Law decisions since Vincenzo Rondinelli's last update.

Since the Supreme Court's ruling in R v Summers, it is uncontroversial that offenders are generally entitled to 1.5 days credit for every day of pre-trial custody. What do offenders have to do to lose that enhanced credit? Assistant Crown Attorney Grace Hession David reviews the latest case law.

This month from the Ontario Court of Appeal: The Court's first real treatment of the Jordan 11(b) framework, allowing fresh evidence to overturn a murder verdict, and a trial counsel whose incompetence tainted the entire proceeding, requiring a new trial.

In R v Jordan, the majority of the Supreme Court provided a completely new test to protect the right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter. But is the new test really as different from the old test as the Court says? Chair of the OBA Criminal Justice Section Jody Berkes investigates without delay.

Technology is changing the way we communicate - and with how many we communicate at any given time. Group emails and a myriad of other communication methods raise the question: can groups of people enjoy the traditional protections bestowed on "private" communication?

Case comment on TPS v LD, 2016 ONSC 5500

Highlights from the Ontario Court of Appeal: Crown misconduct, searching "abandoned" cars, and hearsay evidence both spoken and heard by the dead.