R v Wong, (2018) S.C.J. 25 – (Moldaver, Gascon, Brown & Rowe): [67] It is well established that for a plea to be informed, the accused must be aware of its consequences: Taillefer, at para. 85. At a minimum, this entails awareness of the criminal consequences of a plea, and thus awareness that conviction and a penalty may follow: T. Read more...
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 Duncan, 2018 ONCA 574 (Lauwers): [9] The issue before this court is, as in Pham, whether a sentence otherwise falling within the range of fit sentences can be varied by this court to take potential deportation into account. Trotter J. noted: “Wagner J. [in Pham] warned (at para. 16) that the consideration of immigration consequences ‘must not lead Read more...
R v Anderson, 2018 ONSC 5720 (Penny): [18] Wagner J. wrote in St-Cloud at paragraph 131: …that a generous and liberal interpretation of the meaning of new evidence in the context of section 520 and 521 of the Criminal Code is thus quite consistent with the principles developed by this court. [19] He went on to say the due diligence Read more...