Celebrating 200 Blog Posts!


Thanks to all those who follow me following the law.  I began the blog in November of 2016; lots more to come.     


              "Law never is, but is always about to be."
Benjamin Cardozo

Stuart O'Connell, O'Connell Law Group (leadersinlaw.ca)



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Absconding Accused during Trial

When an Accused may be absent from his/her trial Section 650 of the Criminal Code requires an accused to be present during his trial except in three situations: (1) when an accused so disrupts or interferes with the proceedings he must be removed; (2) the trial court permits the accused to be absent; or (3) during a fitness hearing where allowing the accused to remain in the courtroom has the potential for causing an adverse affect upon the accused's mental condition. Section 475 of the Code deals with what may be done when an accused "a bsconds during the course of his trial." [ Code s. 475(1)].   Under this provision, the Court may be called upon to determine at the outset whether the trial has commenced.   Having found that the trial has commenced, the Court must determine whether there has been an abscondence. Absconds It is common ground that the meaning of A absconding" for the purpose of s. 475 is as defined by Martin J.A. in ...
Read more

Arrested at Home: Feeney Warrants

At common law, where the police had reasonable grounds to arrest a suspect and reasonable grounds to believe a suspect was in a private dwelling-house, they were entitled to enter and arrest the suspect, with or without an arrest warrant, if proper announcement was made. See R. v. Landry , 1986 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145 , and Eccles v. Bourque et al. , 1974 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739 ). However, in the 1997 decision of R. v. Feeney , the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the common law violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that generally, warrantless arrests within private dwellings were prohibited.  Absent exigent circumstances or cases of hot pursuit, an entry warrant would be required to enter a dwelling house to make an arrest.    R. v. Feeney , 1997 CanLII 342 (SCC), at paras. 44-51.  Parliament responded by enacting sections 529-529.5 of the Criminal Code , which, among other things, creates two di...
Read more

The Curative Proviso : When Being Wrong Doesn't Matter

Section 686(1)(b)(iii) (the “curative proviso”) of the Criminal Code permits an appellate court to uphold a conviction despite error of law committed by the trial judge where that error has not led to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.  The “ curative proviso ” is to be applied only in those cases where the outcome of the trial, irrespective of the error, would necessarily have been the same. Colpitts v. The Queen , 1965 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1965] S.C.R. 739 ).  The onus of establishing that this high standard is met is on the Crown. R. v. Jolivet , 2000 SCC 29 (CanLII), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 751 ; R. v. Khan , 2001 SCC 86 (CanLII), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 823 ; R. v. Van , 2009 SCC 22 (CanLII), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 716 . The curative proviso may be applied, according to its modern interpretation, where the Crown can establish on a balance of probabilities that the legal error is harmless, in the sense that no prejudice has resulted, or that, despite any preju...
Read more