Charter Cases: Section 11: Legal Rights
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
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. 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