R v Candir, 2009 ONCA 915 (Watt): [55] In cases like this, where the prosecutor alleges that the murder charged was motivated by the appellant’s anger in the deceased’s decision to end the relationship, the prosecutor is entitled to adduce evidence to prove the deceased’s contemporaneous mental or emotional state with respect to the accused, such as dislike, hatred or Read more...
R v. Whalen, 2010 ONCA 712 (Court): [1] THE COURT:– The conviction on refusing did not depend on accepting the police evidence. The appellant’s own evidence established both the actus reas and mens rea of the offence. The trial judge was entitled to accept this evidence and find, as he did, that the appellant did not want to provide adequate Read more...
R v Charlery, 2011 ONSC 2952 (Benotto): [26] Certainly, there is a privacy concern that attaches to contact information. The Crown retains reviewable discretion as to the manner and timing of disclosure where the circumstances are such the disclosure in the usual way may result in harm to any one or prejudice to the public interest As discussed in R. Read more...
R v. Truong, 2012 ONCA 91 (per Curiam): [4] In this case, the trial judge rejected the appellant’s testimony on several bases. Chief among these was the fact that the appellant’s version of events as recounted in his trial testimony stood in stark contrast to that of the senior police officer at the scene in several critical respects. In this Read more...
R v Stubbs, 2013 ONCA 514 (Watt): [54] First, as a general (but not unyielding) rule, evidence of misconduct beyond that charged in an indictment, which does no more than portray an accused as a person of (general) bad character, is inadmissible: R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908, at paras. 31 and 36; R. v. Moo, Read more...