Criminal Code
R v Morrison: Child Luring Provisions are Tested by the Supreme Court of Canada
Online communication platforms give people the tools to engage in meaningful and productive ways. They have also given predators the opportunity to connect with children without supervision, and the ability to groom those children for the purpose of sexual abuse. Accordingly, Parliament has criminalized telecommunications with children for the purposes of facilitating sexualized discussions or […]
Bad Blood? R v Culotta Addresses Admissibility of Admissibility of Blood Samples Obtained by Health Care Professionals
Introduction Often, the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") issues reasons for their decisions without writing a lengthy judgment of its own. It is easy to overlook these cases as unimportant and inconsequential, as the SCC itself simply adopted the decision of a lower court. The recent case R v Culotta, 2019 SCC 33 [R v […]
R v Gubbins Introduces Evidentiary Hurdles for Those Charged with Driving Over 80
Introduction When a breathalyzer is prepared for use by a police officer, it performs a series of internal and external diagnostic tests to ensure the accuracy of the results of the tests. After the breath samples are taken, the breathalyzer machine prints the results of the diagnostic tests, which are later provided to the accused […]
R v Suter: The Difficulties of Sentencing
On June 29, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “Supreme Court”) delivered its ruling in R v Suter, 2018 SCC 34 [Suter], a case which, at its core, “raises critical questions about what can legitimately be considered as ‘relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender’” (Factum of the Appellant, […]
Influence Peddling: From the Criminal Code to the Prime Minister’s Office
At first glance, R v Carson, 2018 SCC 12 [Carson] is a criminal law case concerning the interpretation of section 121(1)(d) of the Criminal Code, RSC 185, c C-46 [Criminal Code]. However, the dissent in Carson reveals an important critique of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples. The narrow reading of section 121(1)(d) of the Criminal Code grants First […]
R v Barton: Interventions to Determine the Role of Interventions
In the 25 years since the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [“Charter”], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has become increasingly open to third-party intervenors, expanding their role within our justice system. However, new questions have arisen about the efficacy of such interventions as the Court opens its doors to more […]
R v Barton: Do “Rape Shield” Laws Apply in First Degree Murder Cases?
Author's Note: This article and the linked case discuss sexual violence and violence against women that may be upsetting to readers. Introduction Myths and stereotypes about consent, women’s sexuality, and sexual assault are very much alive and well within criminal proceedings. In an attempt to mitigate the ill effects of these stereotypes, Parliament has enacted […]
R v Boutilier: The Dangerous Offender Regime and the Spectre of Indeterminate Sentences
On December 21st, 2017, the Supreme Court released its decision in R v Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64 [Boutilier], which deals with a constitutional challenge to the dangerous offender scheme in the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 [the Code]. This post will discuss the case and offer insight into its importance. In particular, the post […]
R v Antic: Making way for a more efficient bail system
In the recent R v Antic, 2017 SCC 27 [Antic] decision, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) provides a much-needed reminder for bail courts across the country to uphold the accused’s right to a reasonable bail under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [Charter] when making decisions on releases. Antic highlights a […]