R v Sandhu, 2009 ONCA 102 (Laskin): [15] Second, much of the evidence given by both Mr. Sandhu and Ms. Sandhu is relevant to all the counts. For example, in discussing her marital relationship, Ms. Sandhu testified that she sought her husband’s permission before doing anything, that she did as she was told, and that she would not have left Read more...
R v Sandhu, 2009 ONCA 102 (Laskin): [15] Second, much of the evidence given by both Mr. Sandhu and Ms. Sandhu is relevant to all the counts. For example, in discussing her marital relationship, Ms. Sandhu testified that she sought her husband’s permission before doing anything, that she did as she was told, and that she would not have left Read more...
R v. BADHWAR, 2009 CanLII23890 – (SCJ – McISAAC) [1] This is an application to permit Mr. Badhwar to sit at counsel table during his jury trial which counsel estimate will last, at the outside, four weeks. The Crown conceded he poses neither a flight or security risk and he has been on bail since August 31, 2007. He faces Read more...
R v Ellis, 2009 ONCA 483 – (Gillese): [38] In my view, “territorial jurisdiction” in s. 504 of the Criminal Code refers to the entire province of Ontario. [39] Pursuant to s. 17(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act, justices have jurisdiction throughout Ontario. The fact that the Courts of Justice Act divides Ontario into regions for administrative purposes Read more...
R v Griffin, 2009 SCC 28 (Charron): [58] Applying Smith and Starr to the facts of the present case, there is no doubt that Poirier’s statement cannot be admitted as proof of Griffin’s intentions, because we do not know the basis on which Poirier came to believe that if he was harmed, Griffin would be responsible. Hence, Poirier’s statement is Read more...