|Present||Associate Dean (Students), Osgoode Hall Law School of York University|
|Present||Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School of York University|
Assistant: Mary Barbieri
Hart and Mack: New Restraints on Mr. Big and a New Approach to Unreliable Prosecution Evidence The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference (2015)
Taken together, the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent judgments in R. v. Hart and R. v. Mack represent a coherent approach to confessions arising from Mr. Big operations. The Court has now recognized that these ...
Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford and the Limits on Substantive Criminal Law under Section 7 The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference (2014)
In Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, the Supreme Court struck down Canada’s prostitution laws on the basis that they violated prostitutes’ right to security of the person and were inconsistent with the principles of fundamental ...
Limited Admissibility and Its Limitations Lisa Dufraimont, "Limited Admissibility and Its Limitations" (2013) 46:2 UBC L Rev 241. (2013)
Among the challenges facing juries and judges in adjudicating cases is the obligation to use evidence for limited purposes. Evidence inadmissible for one purpose is frequently admissible for other purposes, a situation known as "limited ...
Realizing the Potential of the Principled Approach to Evidence Queen's Law Journal, Vol. 39, Issue 1 (Fall 2013), pp. 11-40 (2013)
Ron Delisle's concern that lawyers and judges be constantly mindful of the purposes and policies underlying the rules of evidence led him to become one of the pioneers of the principled approach to evidence. This ...
The Patchwork Principle against Self-Incrimination under the Charter The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference (2012)
The principle against self-incrimination refers to the idea that an individual cannot be compelled to assist in her own prosecution. In the pre-Charter era, the view prevailed that no overarching principle against self-incrimination existed in ...
The Interrogation Trilogy and the Protections for Interrogated Suspects in Canadian Law The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference (2011)
In the 2010 case of R. v. Sinclair, the Supreme Court of Canada explained how the Charter right to counsel applies in the context of police questioning a detainee. Sinclair constitutes the final instalment in ...
R. v. Ferguson and the Search for a Coherent Approach to Mandatory Minimum Sentences under Section 12 The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference (2008)
Since the early days of the Charter, uncertainty prevailed about constitutional exemptions as a remedy for breaches of the section 12 guarantee against “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment”. It was unclear whether an offender ...
Regulating Unreliable Evidence: Can Evidence Rules Guide Juries and Prevent Wrongful Convictions Queen's Law Journal, Vol. 33, Issue 2 (Spring 2008), pp. 261-326 (2008)
Recent years have seen increasing concern over the prevalence of wrongful convictions in Canadian criminal courts. This concern is particularly pronounced in jury trials, as jurors are untrained and often lack the familiarity, experience and ...
The Common Law Confessions Rule in the Charter Era: Current Law and Future Directions The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference (2008)
In an era of Charter protections, the common law rule excluding involuntary confessions remains a suspect’s best legal protection against coercive interrogation. This paper reviews and evaluates the current Canadian confessions rule and points to ...