Robson Crim Legal Blog
125 FOLLOWERS
At Robson Crim, Canada's criminal law blog , we are committed to legal education outside of the ivory tower. This space provides reflections on current issues in criminal law.
Robson Crim Legal Blog
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
Robson Crim Legal Blog
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
Robson Crim Legal Blog
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
Robson Crim Legal Blog
3w ago
by J Mann The Canadian criminal justice system has historically functioned in a traditional manner that emphasizes the need for ..read more
Robson Crim Legal Blog
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
Robson Crim Legal Blog
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
Robson Crim Legal Blog
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
Robson Crim Legal Blog
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
Robson Crim Legal Blog
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
Robson Crim Legal Blog
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