This capsule explores the manner in which corroborative evidence can be used to render hearsay evidence “reliable” and hence admissible under the residual exception the rule. In particular, it assesses the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in R v Bradshaw, 2017 SCC 35.
R vs Hart: New Test for Probative Value
In this video blog, I explore the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v Hart, 2014 SCC 52, which addressed the admissibility of confessions made while the accused was being investigated by use of a “Mr Big” operation. My interest here is not so much in these operations per se, but what the Court’s decision tells us about how …
Lizotte vs Aviva: Litigation Privilege at SCC
In this video blog, I examine the Supreme Court’s recent decision on litigation privilege in Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 52. The blog reviews the decision and explains what it does for the privilege, and then considers four big questions that emerge in light of the judgment.
R vs DLW and the Crime of Bestiality (15mins)
This video looks at the Supreme Court’s recent decision in R v DLW, released in June 2016, which defined the offence of bestiality. In the blog, I spend the first half addressed the Court’s interpretative approach to criminal law statutes. In the second, I explain why I think the case is so positive for animal advocates.
Carter, The Assisted Dying Bill and Constitutional Remedies (15mins)
In this video blog, I explain the impact of the Carter v Canada decision, which struck down the assisted suicide provision of the Criminal Code, but did so in an unusual way. The federal government is trying to enact legislation with an eye on June 6, when the SCC’s decision to “suspend” the declaration of invalidity expires. What happens if …
R vs Barabash, Child Pornography and the Private Use Exception (10mins)
In this video blog, I consider the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in R v Barabash, 2015 SCC 29. In addition to explaining the decision, I consider some of its ramifications for the possession of child pornography.
Reversing the Burden of Proof in Summary Conviction Trials (10mins)
Talk about flying under the radar. Two days ago, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the case of R v Goleski from the bench. In the process, it confirmed that s. 794 imposes a burden of proof on the defendant to prove certain defences and excuses in EVERY summary conviction trial. This is not a good thing. To find out why, watch …