R v Figiola – 2018 ONCA 578 (Doherty JA): [68] As I understand the thrust of this submission, the appellant contends that cross-examination under s. 9(1) of Crown witnesses is limited to situations in which the inconsistent evidence is unexpected and/or there is some real likelihood that cross-examination will cause the witness to adopt the earlier inconsistent statement. [69] The Read more...
R v Figiola – 2018 ONCA 578 (Doherty JA): [61] In my view, if the Crown has a good faith basis for believing that a witness has relevant evidence to give, the Crown may call that witness even though the Crown expects that the witness will give evidence inconsistent with the Crown’s position and evidence that contradicts the witness’ prior Read more...
R v. Lamure – 2018 ONSC 6161 (Parfett): [4] In the present case, the events that led to the allegation of sexual assault occurred sometime in the fall of 2013 when the complainant was 17 years of age. The complainant disclosed to her mother in November 2013 and her mother went to the police in January 2014 to advise them Read more...
R v CG, 2018 ONSC 6204 (Bell): [14] There is a distinction to be drawn between the “foundational information” for the opinion — which must be disclosed on the basis of an implied waiver of privilege over the facts underlying the expert’s opinion that results from calling the expert as a witness — and draft reports (Moore, at para. 75). Read more...
R v SB – 2018 ONCA 807 (Strathy): [66] As has been pointed out on many occasions, post-offence conduct evidence invokes retrospectant reasoning. The occurrence of a subsequent act, state of mind or state of affairs is used to infer the occurrence of a prior act, state of mind or state of affairs. Post-offence conduct is circumstantial evidence, used to Read more...