Section 11: Legal Rights
R. v. Oland, [2017] 1 SCR 250
Although the underlying appeal of Mr. Oland’s second degree murder conviction had been granted, and the bail issue rendered moot, the Supreme Court took the extraordinary step of considering a moot appeal to clarify the proper scope of the public interest criterion for denying bail pending appeal, pursuant to s. 679(3)(c) of the Criminal Code. Continue reading
Filed under Section 11(e): Bail
R. v. K.R.J., [2016] 1 SCR 906
In considering the retroactive effect of new probation provisions for sexual offenders, the Supreme Court considered the effect of section 1 of the Charter (reasonable limits) on subsection 11(i) thereof (benefit of the lesser punishment). Continue reading
R. v. Jordan, [2016] 1 SCR 631
Barrett Richard Jordan was charged in December 2008 for his role in a dial-a-dope operation, and his trial ended with a conviction in February 2013. The Supreme Court used Mr. Jordan’s case as an opportunity to reformulate the test for trial within a reasonable time, overturning the conviction and entering a judicial stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 11(b) of the Charter. Continue reading
Canada (Attorney General) v. Whaling, 2014 SCC 20
When the federal government passed the Abolition of Early Parole Act, three inmates serving sentences for first-time, non-violent offences argued that the retroactive application of such legislation infringed their right not to be “punished again” for the same offence. When they were sentenced, these individuals were eligible for day parole after just one sixth of their custodial sentences were served. The new legislation, however, extended their sentences far beyond what was initially imposed. Continue reading
R. v. Ghozerash, 2013 BCCA 272
In September 2009, Azad Yousefi Ghozerash was charged with importing and possessing opium for the purpose of trafficking. His case was initially set for trial in December 2010, but adjourned due to the unavailability of a Crown witness. The trial was then rescheduled for October 2011, at which time counsel for the accused made an application for a judicial stay of proceedings on account of unreasonable delay. Continue reading
R. v. Mailhot, 2013 SCC 17
In a brief but meaningful decision rendered March 28, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada insisted on a new trial for Jean Philippe Mailhot, an accused individual whose right to a fair trial had been compromised by comments of the trial judge during the charge to the jury. Continue reading
R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 72
Two accused persons stood charged with sexually assaulting N.S. When called to testify, N.S. stated that she wished to wear a niqab which covered her face, and which she insisted was a necessary part of her Muslim faith. Continue reading
R. v. Dineley, 2012 SCC 58
Dineley was heard as a companion case alongside R. v. St Onge Lamoureux and involved an analysis of whether legislative amendments to Canada’s impaired driving laws could operate retrospectively, thereby preventing the accused from calling an expert witness to cast doubt on Breathalyzer results. The amendments in question only became law during the course of Mr. Dineley’s trial. Continue reading
R. v. St-Onge Lamoureux, 2012 SCC 57
The accused, Anic St-Onge Lamoureux, was charged with impaired driving and had sought at trial to advance a so called “Carter defence,” arguing that the Breathalyzer results obtained from her did not accurately represent her blood alcohol level. Continue reading
R. v. Hill, 2012 ONSC 5050
Roland Hill challenged the constitutionality of Section 753(1.1) of the Criminal Code, arguing that it violated the presumption of innocence and principles of fundamental justice insofar as shifted the burden of proof onto convicted offenders to demonstrate that they should not be prosecuted as “dangerous offenders.” Continue reading