Section 11: Legal Rights
R. v. D.A.I., 2012 SCC 5
The D.A.I. case involved a mentally challenged 23-year-old complainant who alleged that her mother’s common law partner had repeatedly sexually assaulted her over a period of four years. The complainant’s mental capacities were found to be equivalent to those of a three- to six-year-old child and the trial judge excluded her evidence because it had not been shown that she understood the duty to testify truthfully. Continue reading
Filed under Section 11: Legal Rights
R. v. Bartle, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173
R. v. Bartle established a positive duty on the part of police officers to provide detained persons with an opportunity to exercise their right to retain and instruct counsel. In this case, police officers informed Mr. Bartle of his right to counsel when they took him into custody for suspected impaired driving, but failed to advise him of a toll-free number that he could call to speak with a duty counsel lawyer. Continue reading
R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606
The Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society was charged with two counts of conspiracy to unduly prevent or lessen competition, as a result of its practices in selling and dispensing prescription drugs in 1986 and prior. Continue reading
R. v. Morin [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771
In R. v. Morin, the Supreme Court of Canada revisited the test for unreasonable delay set out in R. v. Askov, putting an increased emphasis on the presence or absence of prejudice, and putting a greater onus on the accused to prove that prejudice has occurred. Continue reading
R. v. Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199
The appellants, who were charged with conspiracy to commit extortion, as well as a number of firearms offenses, argued that a two-year delay in bringing their case to trial had violated their right to be tried within a reasonable time under Section 11(b) of the Charter. Continue reading
R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 SCR 151
In R. v. Hebert, the Supreme Court of Canada defined the scope and nature of the right to remain silent. The accused, Neil Gerald Hebert, was arrested on a charge of robbery and indicated that he did not wish to speak with the police. An undercover police officer was then placed in his cell, posing as another suspect under arrest. Mr. Hebert spoke to this individual and made numerous incriminating statements. Continue reading
R. v. Rowbotham, 1988 CanLII 147 (ON CA)
In R. v. Rowbotham, ten Appellants challenged various convictions of conspiracy to import marijuana and hashish. Numerous grounds of appeal were argued, but what makes this a key case in Charter jurisprudence is the ground pursued by George and Laura Kononow, two unrepresented accused who argued that a lawyer should have been provided for them in order to protect their right to a fair trial. Continue reading
R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 SCR 541
In R. v. Wigglesworth, the Appellant was a police officer who had been charged with Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act for choking and slapping a detained person, and later charted under the Criminal Code for common assault towards the same detained individual. He challenged this charge as being double jeopardy, contrary to Section 11(h) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Continue reading
Filed under Section 11(h): Double Jeopardy
R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103
In R. v. Oakes, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a Court of Appeal decision striking down a clause of the Narcotic Control Act which presumed that an individual in possession of drugs had the intent to traffic. This reverse onus, the Court ruled, was contrary to the presumption of innocence in Section 11(d) of the Charter, and was not a reasonable limit on the legal rights of the accused and therefore could not be saved by Section 1. Continue reading