In a case called Goldfinch, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether the trial judge should have admitted evidence that Mr. Goldfinch and the complainant in a sexual assault case were in a "friends with benefits" relationship. At trial, the evidence was admitted to give context to their relationship. Mr. Goldfinch was found not guilty by a jury. It is now clear that "friends with benefits" evidence will not be admitted just to put a relationship in context because that would violate the myth that someone who has consented to sexual activity in the past is likely to have consented on the date of the alleged offence. At Mr Goldfinch's trial, he and the complainant both testified that he mouthed the words "I'm going to fxxx you." One of the Supreme Court opinions, written by Justice Moldaver, suggested that the 'friends with benefits" evidence might have been admissible had Mr. Goldfinch been more specific in his Notice of Application about the specific and legitimate purpose that the evidence would have had at trial. Specificity could avoid violating the myth that prior consent is relevant to consent at the time of the alleged offence. Justice Moldaver wrote that the "I'm going to fxxx you" comment could have seemed "bizarre or even menacing" without evidence about "friends with benefits". Because the Supreme Court found that the trial judge made errors, Mr. Goldfinch has to go to trial again. At his new trial, Mr. Goldfinch will have to file a detailed application and the trial judge will decide whether the evidence is admissible. The trial judge will weigh the narrow purpose for admitting the evidence and the impact that the evidence could have on the complainant's privacy rights and dignity. If the trial judge finds that the evidence is necessary to ensure Mr. Goldfinch can make full answer and defence to the charge, it will be admitted. This is a very complex and developing area of law requiring counsel with expertise.
Genetic Genealogy and Police Investigations
Genetic genealogy is a tool that has people uploading their DNA to databases so that they can find long lost relatives and make new connections. What has been making the news more recently is the fact that some public databases cooperate with law enforcement agencies to give those agencies a new investigative technique that has led to dozens of arrests, and which brings a host of new legal issues.
Summer Road Trips and Cannabis
This year marks the first summer it will be legal to smoke cannabis in Canada. The substance become legal just after the start of fall in 2018, when it had its supporters and naysayers. The government, as well as many other organizations - from healthcare professionals to CAA - posted articles on the dangers of driving high and the impact cannabis can have on your mental faculties.
While all those efforts were very important and well-received, it is the summer when car accidents tend to be the highest in volume. And if you have been caught under the influence of alcohol or cannabis, you can be charged with impaired driving.
The "Gateways to Custody" in Youth Cases
If your child is charged with a criminal offence, you may be wondering what the likelihood is that he or she will receive a jail sentence if convicted (otherwise known as a custodial sentence). That question, which can keep a terrified parent up at night, can really only be answered on a case by case basis. As such, it is very important to get legal advice to assist you in understanding potential sentencing outcomes. While these conversations can be hard to have, a meeting with a lawyer who can guide you through realistic outcomes and worst-case scenarios may well ease your worries.
Conduite inattentive
La conduite inattentive est devenue une épidémie nationale. Les lois ontariennes sur la conduite inattentive sont plus sévères que jamais et il est important que les conducteurs prennent au sérieux les conséquences potentielles de cette infraction.
When a defendant has been denied bail: The SCC in R. v. Myers
When a individual is denied bail after a bail hearing or remains in custody waiting the outcome of their legal proceedings, are there any protections to ensure that this person does not languish in jail? Section 525 of the Criminal Code stipulates that when in custody, an accused person is entitled to have their detention reviewed every 90 days. However, over the years, there has been conflicting cases about what this actually means. What is the proper approach to conducting a 90-day detention bail review? Within the last weeks, the Supreme Court of Canada released R. v. Myers, where it specially addressed this question.
Supreme Court Rules Part of Child Luring Law is Unconstitutional
In a decision released last week, R v Morrison, 2019 SCC 15, the Supreme Court considered various aspects of the Criminal Code that deal with the offence of child luring. The Court was asked to consider the constitutionality of three parts of the offence, and ultimately found one section to be unconstitutional and the other two as being valid.
Think a distracted driving offence is no big deal? Think again.
Driving while distracted has become a national epidemic. However, just because it is common doesn’t mean it is safe. And it also doesn’t make it okay in the eyes of the law.
In fact, distracted driving laws in Ontario are harsher than ever now, and it is crucial for drivers to take the potential consequences of this offense seriously.
La défense du consentement implicite dans le contexte d'une relation conjugale
L'infraction de voies de fait est définie de manière large et peut englober toutes sortes de contacts ayant lieu dans une relation conjugale. Ceci inclut toute situation dans laquelle une personne, sans le consentement de l'autre personne, applique intentionnellement la force à cette personne, directement ou indirectement. Ceci inclut également certaines situations dans lesquelles aucune force réelle n'est appliquée.
Victim Surcharges Found Unconstitutional
In 2013, the Government amended the victim fine surcharge law, taking away the Judges' discretion in whether to impose the surcharge. In all cases when offenders were discharged, plead guilty or found guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act they were required to pay a victim fine surcharge. The surcharge was 30% of any fine imposed or $100 for every summary conviction count and $200 for every indictable count.
