What is Canada's age of consent and what are the Liberals changing?

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

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

Challenging the Validity of a Search Warrant

At trial, the defence may challenge the constitutionality of a search conducted under the authority of a search warrant by demonstrating that the contents of the affidavit relied on to obtain the warrant could not justify its issuance (this affidavit is known as the Information to Obtain or ITO ).  If the challenge is successful, the search is treated as warrantless, rendering it unreasonable and contrary to s. 8 of the Charter .  The defence must then demonstrate that the fruits of the search should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter :    R. v. Pires , 2005 SCC 66, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 343, at para. 8. On a challenge to the validity of the warrant, the reviewing judge does not make a de novo assessment of the ITO’s contents.  Rather, he or she decides whether those contents provide a basis upon which the issuing justice, acting judicially, could find reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and that evidence of...
Read more