All 3 - TRIAL ISSUES

R v Darrach – (2000) 2 SCR 443 (Gonthier): [24] These cases are part of the Court’s jurisprudence that has consistently held that the principles of fundamental justice enshrined in s. 7 protect more than the rights of the accused. As McLachlin J. wrote in Seaboyer, supra, at p. 603: “ The principles of fundamental justice reflect a spectrum of Read more...

R v Moosemay, [2001] A.J. No. 1164 (ACJ – Fradsham, PCJ): [31] In summary, I am satisfied that the common law permits me, as trial judge, to seal an exhibit, and thereby restrict public access to it, if I find there to be sufficient cause such as the protection of innocent persons. Individuals in the circumstances of the witness called Read more...

R v GERVAIS, 2001 CanLII 28428 (SCJ – Campbell) [8] Although the Criminal Code is silent on this issue, the following principles emerge[2]: 1. The customary position of the accused in the courtroom is in the dock 2. The trial judge has discretion as to the position of the accused in the courtroom in individual cases 3. The presence of Read more...

R v GRANDINETTI, 2003 ABCA 307 – (McFayden) Discretion of trial judge [84] In R. v. Faid (1981), 1981 ABCA 139 (CanLII), 61 C.C.C. (2d) 28 (Alta. C.A.), rev’d on other grounds, 1983 CanLII 136 (SCC), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 265, this Court held that the seating location of an accused during a trial is a matter solely in the discretion Read more...

R V. ZWEZDARYK – [2004] O.J. NO. 6137 (SCJ – R. Clark) Para 24: “I do not see any prejudice to any accused occasioned by all three being in the prisoner’s box. I am not convinced that there is any significant impediment to communication between counsel and the client engendered by the fact that the accused is in the box Read more...