If you are calling from a jail, please dial: 613-236-0535
Le privilège relatif aux conjoints, la doctrine juridique qui interdit à un conjoint de témoigner contre son partenaire, remonte au 19e siècle. Ce «privilège» existait en common law et a été codifié et reconnu sous la règle de l'inhabilité à témoigner. Les conjoints...
As most people - within the criminal justice system or not - are aware, one of the cornerstones of our system is that an individual is presumed innocent unless their guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. But what may be less clear for most people is,...
Spousal Privilege, the legal doctrine that prohibited a spouse from testifying against their partner, dates back to the 19th Century. This "privilege", which existed at common law, created the spousal incompetency rule, which codified the privilege. Spouses could not...
Il y a toujours un gros éléphant rose dans la salle d'audience lors d'un procès pour agression sexuelle. POURQUOI une plaignante inventerait-elle cet horrible mensonge. POURQUOI irait-elle voir la police pour se plaindre et POURQUOI subirait-elle un procès où elle...
There is always a big pink elephant in the courtroom at a sexual assault trial. Why would a complainant make up this horrendous lie, go to the police complain and then put herself through a trial where she will be cross-examined? Does the defence have to demonstrate...
Last week, the Ontario of Appeal heard the appeal of the Christy Natsis case. You may recall the Natsis trial a few years ago: a Pembroke dentist who was charged with impaired driving and driving with over 80 milligrams of alcohol in her system. Ultimately, after 55...
