Immediately upon arrest or detention, police must undertake specific informational and implementational duties intended to facilitate the fulfillment of the s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel.

Where an adult is testifying as to events which occurred when they were a child, their credibility should, in general, be assessed according to criteria applicable to them as an adult witness.

Our latest Canlii Connects case summary considers a case from the Manitoba Court of Appeal (R. v. McLean, 2022 MBCA 60) where an accused was faulted for not calling evidence to corroborate his version of events. The case provides a nice example of when an accused can have their failure to call evidence held against them.

Our latest Canlii Connects case summary considers a case from the Alberta Court of Appeal where a new trial was required because the trial judge went too far in applying Judicial Notice to make factual findings without evidence.

At trials Judges are often required to decide which witnesses they believe. In other words, they must assess the credibility of each witness who testifies. This can be particularly challenging of course. Judges don’t have any sort of superpower to determine who is being truthful. What they do have is experience and the benefit of each witness having their evidence tested through cross-examination to assist in determining who to believe, if anybody

Our latest Canlii Connects case summary reviews a decision from Saskatchewan which considered grounds for arrest for marijuana trafficking at a Motor Vehicle stop. The landscape has changed with the legalization of small amounts of marijuana and this case provides an example.

Our latest Canlii Connects case summary takes a quick look at a recent BC Supreme Court case which considered the scope of who can be considered a victim of an offence for the purpose of providing a victim impact statement.

The latest Canlii Connects case summary takes a look at R. v. Sutherland, 2022 MBCA 23 and touches on issues of the scope of expert evidence and and what an appeal court can do if they find there was an error at trial but determine it didn't impact the outcome.

Commonly, people will want to have their conditions changed. There are a number of ways an application to vary bail conditions can be made depending on the particular circumstances of the case.

Our latest Canlii Connects case summary looks at a recent decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal where a trial judge erred in their instructions to the jury on how they were to assess the evidence of one accused who pointed the finger at his co-accused.

Bail conditions can be imposed, but only if they are clearly articulated, minimal in number, necessary, reasonable, the least onerous in the circumstances, and sufficiently linked to the accused’s risks regarding the statutory grounds for detention in s. 515(10): securing the accused’s attendance in court, ensuring the protection or safety of the public, or maintaining confidence in the administration of justice.

The questioning and submissions of the Crown were found to have created a risk of the jury engaging in an impermissible pattern of reasoning. The court ruled that there was a real danger that the jury would accept the stereotypes in place of properly assessing the evidence, and that this harmed the credibility of the defence witnesses in the jurors’ minds, while bolstering the credibility of the complainant.

Fraud is the act of depriving someone of their property, money or something else of value through deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means.

A self-represented accused can present all sorts of challenges for the court. When that self-represented accused makes a conscious effort to act contrary to their own best interests the problems are magnified. One way the court tries to address the issue can be the appointment of a lawyer as amicus curiae.

The latest instalment of our Canlii Connects case summaries reviews an Ontario Court of Appeal decision where the conviction for criminal negligence causing death was found to be unreasonable.

“Can I be charged with impaired driving if I wasn’t driving?”

This is a common question criminal lawyers receive. The answer is yes because of a presumption in the Criminal Code.

In the latest Canlii Connects case summary we take a look at a recent decision where Crown Counsel tried their best to save an unlawful search. The Court did not endorse this novel approach.

The latest case summary for Canlii Connects takes a look at the Supreme Court of Canada’s commentary on the sentencing process. A number of important principles emerge from this case including the court highlighting the importance of individualization in crafting a proportionate sentence.