All Cases

R v W.E.Q.S., 2018 MBCA 106 (Steel): [45] Officers are not required to articulate a specific offence when arresting someone on reasonable grounds, as long as the substance of the offence is communicated to the accused and the offence contemplated by the officer falls into the category of a hybrid or indictable offence. 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...

R v Jalili, 2018 ONSC 6408 (Ahktar): [63] The Crown did not breach its disclosure obligations because the defence failed to meet its burden to show that the notes met the Flis requirements. If Mr. Thorning was seeking further information regarding the contact between Det. McInnis and the complainant, it was incumbent on him “to meet the burden of demonstrating Read more...

R v Jalili, 2018 ONSC 6408 (Akhtar): [42] In R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 309, the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged that a stay of proceedings is the most drastic remedy that a court can order. The court, at para. 31, identified two categories of cases where a stay of proceedings would be justified: (1) where Read more...

R v Jalili, 2018 ONSC 6408 (Ahktar): [53] The test for disclosure can be found at p. 339 of Stinchcombe which states that the Crown need not produce “what is clearly irrelevant”. Communications between the officer in charge dealing with attendance at court, scheduling interviews, and explaining court procedure are therefore not disclosable because they have nothing to do with Read more...