Stuart O'Connell Criminal Law Blog

In no particular order: #10 Consider the immigration status of your client & the potential collateral consequences of a guilty plea For permanent residents and foreign nationals, very significant consequences may follow a conviction that rises to the level of serious criminality under the Immigration and Refuge Protection Act , namely, the offender being subject to a removal order from Canada upon completion of their sentence. It is essential then to be aware of a client’s immigration status.  As a matter of good practice, your firm’s client intake form should include information regarding immigration status. [FN1] Under section 36(1)(1) of the Immigration and Refuge Protection Act , a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality whereupon he/she is convicted of  1.        a federal offence (which includes any offence in the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ) pu...

Under section. 162(1)(c) of the Criminal Code the offence of voyeurism is committed where a person surreptitiously observes or makes a visual recording of another person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, if the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.   See R. v. Rudiger , 2011 BCSC 1397 (CanLII) , 244 C.R.R. (2d) 69 , at para. 75 . The voyeurism offence was enacted in 2005 to address public concerns with the rapid advent of technology that could be used to spy on people surreptitiously for sexual purposes.   While the offence of voyeurism is almost fifteen years old, there has been relatively few decisions under the section, which makes the Supreme Court of Canada’s release of its unanimous decision in R. v. Jarvis all the more important. In R. v. Jarvis the Supreme Court of Canada has provided a doctrinal framework for determining when circumstances will give rise to a reasonable expectation of privac...

The rule in Browne v. Dunn is rooted in the principle of fairness, principally to a witness whose credibility is challenged on cross-examination and to the party who called the witness. As Lord Chancellor Hershell explained the rule at p. 70 of Browne v. Dunn : “[I]f you intend to impeach a witness you are bound, whilst he is in the box, to give him opportunity of making any explanation which is open to him.” Aspects of the rule include the following: ·   Although counsel are not required to confront a witness with every bit of evidence upon which he or she may be contradicted, fairness requires that the witness be confronted on contradictory matters of substance so that the witness can be given an opportunity to explain. R. v. Quansah, 2015 ONCA 237, 125 O.R. (3d) 81, at para. 81, leave to appeal refused [2016] S.C.C.A. No. 203; R. v. Vorobiov, 2018 ONCA 448, at paras. 42-43. ·    However, even on matters of substance, the witnes...

Section 715.1 of the Criminal Codes permits the reception of a videotaped statement of a complainant or witness under 18 at the time an offence is alleged to have been committed, provided certain statutory requirements have been satisfied. The provision does not authorize the introduction of evidence that offends other admissibility rules.  Editing may be required to ensure compliance with these rules. Section 715.1 permits the introduction of evidence only to the extent that the witness or complainant “describes the acts complained of”. References to other conduct not encompassed by the indictment or to conversations that form no part of “the acts complained of” are not rendered admissible by s. 715.1. In R. v. J.A.T ., for instance, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the trial judge had erred in admitting the complainant’s video statement under 715.1 without editing out references to the accused’s post-offence conduct. R. v. J.A.T ., 2012 ONCA 177 (CanLII), at...