Unshackling Bail Reform: The Misguided Nature of Bill C-48 by M Yuel
Robson Crim Legal Blog
by Featured in Robson Crim
1w ago
In early 2023, an Ontario police officer lost their life at the hands of an individual who had been granted judicial release, otherwise ..read more
Visit website
Mental Health Courts - a discussion by J Mann
Robson Crim Legal Blog
by Featured in Robson Crim
2w ago
Mental Health Courts (“MHCs” or the “MHC”) began to appear in the United States in the 1990s and continued to expand when the US federal ..read more
Visit website
The Brother’s Ear: Speculation, Weak Instruction, and Other Shortcomings in Schneider by Lisa Haydey and Laraib Khaliqdina
Robson Crim Legal Blog
by Featured in Robson Crim
3w ago
The Brother’s Ear:   Speculation, Weak Instruction, and Other Shortcomings in Schneider Can a phone conversation between a man and his ..read more
Visit website
Specialized Courts - a reflection on practices
Robson Crim Legal Blog
by Featured in Robson Crim
3w ago
by J Mann The Canadian criminal justice system has historically functioned in a traditional manner that emphasizes the need for ..read more
Visit website
Undeniable Harms: Expert Evidence, Parental Capacity, and Cultural Bias in Child Protection Cases
Robson Crim Legal Blog
by Featured in Robson Crim
5M ago
by Heather Peterson ntroduction             Section 37(2) of the Child and Family Services Act (the “CFSA”) provides that, “in order to determine the best interests of the child, the judge or master may direct an investigation” into the matter.[1] In child protection cases, where a Child and Family Services (“CFS”) agency seeks to establish a permanent order of guardianship over a child, the investigation will take the form of a parental capacity assessment. Parental capacity assessments (“PCAs”) are a form of expert evidence us ..read more
Visit website
The Public’s Confidence in the Judicial System and the Criminal Justice System: R v Young; R v Caeser
Robson Crim Legal Blog
by Featured in Robson Crim
6M ago
Hearsay, R v Young, and R v Caesar: Promoting the Public’s Confidence in the Judicial System and the Criminal Justice System Abby Stein   What is Hearsay? Hearsay may be broken into a two-part definition.[1] Hearsay refers to “(1) an out-of-court statement (2) that is admitted for the truth of its contents.”[2] With respect to hearsay, unless an exception to the hearsay rule is applicable to the hearsay evidence in question, the hearsay evidence is presumptively inadmissible.[3] Hearsay was a major issue in the fascinating case of R v Young—detailed and discussed in the fol ..read more
Visit website
Chew on This: R v Beaver’s Impact on Manitoban Jurisprudence So Far
Robson Crim Legal Blog
by Featured in Robson Crim
6M ago
Al Borger and N Dueck   Chew on This: Beaver’s Impact on Manitoban Jurisprudence So Far   At some point in our lives, we’ve all felt as though we deserve a second chance. But when do the police? This is the question at the heart of the 2022 Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision in R v Beaver, which sought to clarify the parameters of what can constitute a “fresh start” for law enforcement after they have breached the Charter rights of an accused person. Despite the novelty of the decision, Beaver has already been cited in two Manitoban cases — R v Last and R v Moreau, ind ..read more
Visit website
Understanding Mental Health in Law Enforcement
Robson Crim Legal Blog
by Featured in Robson Crim
6M ago
Understanding Mental Health in Law Enforcement J Shymko Introduction… When learning to ride a bike children use training wheels as a reasonable stepping stone to understand how they can reach their goals- that being to get to where they want to go on the bike without causing harm to themselves or others. Kids are not given a bike and expected to ride in the Toure de France, because that would simply be ridiculous and put themselves and others in harm’s way- creating a dysfunctional race for all involved. This likely appears as obvious, but unfortunately, it metaphorically is along the lines o ..read more
Visit website
R. v. Diakite: Section 276 and its Limitations on Crown Evidence
Robson Crim Legal Blog
by Featured in Robson Crim
6M ago
Anna Nymus Evidence presented in criminal trials is an essential element of the decision-making process of judges and juries. There is perhaps no form of evidence more contested than that which arises out of a so-called “he-said-she-said” alleged sexual assault. Over time the Canadian criminal justice system has amended its views to acknowledge more contemporary beliefs about sexual assault, particularly rebuking and protecting the system from the pitfalls of the “twin myths” of sexual assault.[1]  These logical fallacies allow the presumption that the more sexual history someone has, t ..read more
Visit website
Blindfolded: The Hidden Evidence Dilemma in Canada v Meng
Robson Crim Legal Blog
by Featured in Robson Crim
7M ago
Abby Stein Introduction Public interest immunity occupies a special status in the realm of Canadian evidence law. One of the examples is section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act (“CEA”), pertaining to the disclosure of information that could potentially impact international relations, national defence, or national security.[1] A discussion of this particular part of the evidence statute will follow in the context of Canada (Attorney General) v Meng, 2020 FC 844, which is one out of a series of legal proceedings within a high-profile extradition case fought between the US and Huawei’s CFO, M ..read more
Visit website

Follow Robson Crim Legal Blog on FeedSpot

Continue with Google
Continue with Apple
OR