Articles

A summary of the Ontario Court of Appeal's criminal cases.

With Charter remedies providing the only defence to many criminal charges, gathering evidence to support these claims is integral to full answer and defence. However, Courts seem to be watering down the Crown's disclosure obligations as they apply to "Charter evidence." Is this true, and if so, what can be done about it?

On September 14, 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Pruner v Ottawa Hunt and Golf Club, Limited. The Court held that Mr. Pruner was not entitled to keep his voting Class B share if he wants to transfer from being a Fully Privileged Golfing Member to a Senior Social Member. Furthermore, the Court dealt with a jurisdictional issue involving orders under the Ontario Corporations Act.

This article is a sampling of the leading appellate criminal cases from October.

Disclosure is a constitutional right that must not be converted into a trap through improper cross-examination by the Crown. However, the bar is not absolute. In this detailed paper, former defence lawyer and current prosecutor Tim Kavanagh provides guidance on where the line is drawn so that both sides can avoid stepping over.

This article provides a thorough review of the law on prior consistent statements, including the exceptions to the rule and the uses which may be made of prior statements under each exception.

In R. v. Daybutch, the Ontario Court of Justice found the minimum sentence for impaired driving to be unconstitutional in the circumstances of the case. Author Christina Gray explains why.

Crystal Tomusiak offers this month's instalment of criminal appeal summaries.

The latest installment of Enzo Rondinelli's pithy take on the SCC's latest.