ADVANCED CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SEMINAR WITH STUART O’CONNELL


Toronto, December 8, 2016, 9:00 am-2:00 pm.

An advanced seminar on criminal procedure and Charter issues arising in the criminal investigation and trial process.  Registrants will have input into which topics are covered.


Held at Knights LPC, 100 Bass Pro Mills, Suite 44, Vaughan, Ontario. L4K 5X1.

$75.00

Contact info@leadersinlaw.ca to register or for more info.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Police Powers: Random Vehicle Stops

Random Vehicle Stops under the HTA The Highway Traffic Act of Ontario (specifically, section 216(1)) of the Act) allows a police officer to stop a motor vehicle even in the absence of a reasonable suspicion of an offence having been committed providing it is done for the purpose of general traffic regulation such as checking for a valid driver’s license and insurance, mechanical fitness of the vehicle and the sobriety of the driver. In short, there is a statutory basis for police to stop vehicles for the purpose of highway regulation and safety, even where the stops are random. Brown v. Durham , at para. 21; R. v. Ladouceur , [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257, at p. 1288; R. v. Simpson (1993), 79 C.C.C. (3d) 482 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 492. Equivalent legislation in Canada’s other provinces provides likewise. See, for instance, section 201.1 of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Highway Traffic Act , R.S.N.L. 1990, c. H-3, and British Columbia’s Motor Vehicle Act, [RSBC 1996] Chap...
Read more

Edgar Statements: an Exception to the Rule Against Prior Consistent Statements

It is open to a trial judge to admit an accused's spontaneous out-of-court statements made upon arrest or when first confronted with an accusation as an exception to the general rule excluding prior consistent statements as evidence of the reaction of the accused to the accusation and as proof of consistency, provided the accused takes the stand and exposes himself or herself to cross- examination. The statement of the accused is not strictly evidence of the truth of what was said (subject to being admissible under the principled approach to hearsay evidence) but is evidence of the reaction of the accused, which is relevant to the credibility of the accused and as circumstantial evidence that may have a bearing on guilt or innocence. As a practical matter, once the accused has testified, he or she should be entitled to call in reply the police officer who heard and recorded the statement to verify to the jury the fact that it was made. R. v. Edgar, 2010 ONCA 529 In sum...
Read more

THE COLLATERAL FACTS RULE

Collateral matters have been defined as matters which are not determinative of an issue arising in the pleadings or indictment, or not relevant to matters which must be proved for the determination of the case.  The general rule respecting collateral fact evidence is that one cannot impugn a witness’s credibility by contradicting the witness on matters which are collateral, even in a case where the core issue is credibility.  As one court has put it: “Collateral evidence is evidence which depends for its relevance on the fact that it contradicts a witness.” R. v. H. (J.),   2014 NLCA 25 (CanLII), at para 33. The Reason for the Rule The collateral facts rule prohibits the introduction of evidence for the sole purpose of contradicting a witness’ testimony concerning a collateral fact.  The rule seeks to avoid confusion and proliferation of issues, wasting of time and introduction of evidence of negligible assistance to the trier of fact in determini...
Read more