R. V. P.(N.A.) (2002), 171 C.C.C. (3D) 70 (ONT. C.A. – DOHERTY) Para. 26: “In cases, like this one, where credibility is central to the outcome at trial, the balance may tip in favour of permitting cross-examination on an accused’s criminal record if the accused mounts an all-out attack on the credibility and character of the Crown witnesses. Where that Read more...
R. V. P.(N.A.) (2002), 171 C.C.C. (3D) 70 (ONT. C.A. – DOHERTY) Para. 33: (quoting R. v. McNamara (No. 1) (1981), 56 C.C.C. (2d) 193 at 348 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal ref’d (1981), 56 C.C.C. (2d) 576. (S.C.C.)): “An accused is not entitled, however, under the guise of repudiating the allegations against him to assert expressly or impliedly that Read more...
R v Sandhu, 2009 ONCA 102 (Laskin): [15] Second, much of the evidence given by both Mr. Sandhu and Ms. Sandhu is relevant to all the counts. For example, in discussing her marital relationship, Ms. Sandhu testified that she sought her husband’s permission before doing anything, that she did as she was told, and that she would not have left Read more...
R v Sandhu, 2009 ONCA 102 (Laskin): [15] Second, much of the evidence given by both Mr. Sandhu and Ms. Sandhu is relevant to all the counts. For example, in discussing her marital relationship, Ms. Sandhu testified that she sought her husband’s permission before doing anything, that she did as she was told, and that she would not have left Read more...
R v Griffin, 2009 SCC 28 (Charron): [58] Applying Smith and Starr to the facts of the present case, there is no doubt that Poirier’s statement cannot be admitted as proof of Griffin’s intentions, because we do not know the basis on which Poirier came to believe that if he was harmed, Griffin would be responsible. Hence, Poirier’s statement is Read more...