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 David – 2002 OJ No 3455 (CA – Simmons): [48] I agree that it would have been preferable had the trial judge instructed the jury that they could consider the s. 16 defence only if they were satisfied that the accused committed the act forming the subject matter of a particular charge and, if it was necessary that Read more...
R. V. P.(N.A.) (2002), 171 C.C.C. (3D) 70 (ONT. C.A. – DOHERTY) Para. 33: (quoting R. v. McNamara (No. 1) (1981), 56 C.C.C. (2d) 193 at 348 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal ref’d (1981), 56 C.C.C. (2d) 576. (S.C.C.)): “An accused is not entitled, however, under the guise of repudiating the allegations against him to assert expressly or impliedly that Read more...
R. V. P.(N.A.) (2002), 171 C.C.C. (3D) 70 (ONT. C.A. – DOHERTY) Para. 26: “In cases, like this one, where credibility is central to the outcome at trial, the balance may tip in favour of permitting cross-examination on an accused’s criminal record if the accused mounts an all-out attack on the credibility and character of the Crown witnesses. Where that Read more...
R V. GOLYANIK, [2003] O.J. NO. 346 (SCJ – TRAFFORD) Para 18: “Accordingly, the term “counsel” in s. 650.01 of the Code includes named law firms and named lawyers. It also includes articling students employed by the law firm or named lawyer, if the named lawyer or another lawyer with the law firm specifically instructs them to appear before the Read more...