R v AC – 2018 ONCA 333 (Hourigan): [37] Like a trial judge’s decision on a severance application, a trial judge’s ruling in relation to where an accused sits during his trial is discretionary, and this court should begin from a place of deference: R. v. Lalande (1999), 138 C.C.C. (3d) 441 (Ont. C.A.). While the default placement of an Read more...
R v McDonald – 2018 ONCA 369 (LaForme) [13] The Crown is not required to put by way of cross-examination of the accused all of the arguments it proposes to make in closing. Read more...
R v Conway-McDowall – 2019 ABQB 11 (Henderson): [47] When I apply the modern approach to statutory interpretation, I conclude that s. 561(2) has no application to an accused person’s re-election following a direct indictment. As a result, I conclude that an accused person who re-elects to Judge alone pursuant to s. 565(2) may do so without seeking the consent Read more...
R v Cheveldayoff – 2018 ONSC 4329 (Akhtar): [30] First, in the binding authority of the cases previously cited, the principle that emerges is that there is no obligation on the Crown to call a witness. Neither Cook or Jolivet make reference to directing the Crown to call a witness as a potential remedy. It is worth noting that one Read more...
R v Asselin – 2019 MBCA 94 (Cameron JA): [28] Section 708 provides: Contempt 708(1) A person who, being required by law to attend or remain in attendance for the purpose of giving evidence, fails, without lawful excuse, to attend or remain in attendance accordingly is guilty of contempt of court. Punishment 708(2) A court, judge, justice or provincial court Read more...