Evidence
After-the-fact conduct
R v Calnen, 2019 SCC 6
After-the-fact conduct may inform intent in a homicide prosecution.
R v Davis, 2021 ONSC 8163
Reasonable fear of police from young Black men is relevant in considering probative value of after-the-fact conduct.
R v JM, 2019 SCC 24
Evidence that the accused failed to attend a previous trial is not presumptively admissible after-the-fact conduct. The admissibility of this evidence must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
bad character
R v Cook, 2020 ONCA 731
Items seized in a search warrant are not admissible unless relevant to the offence charged. The fact that the accused was the target of a Project investigation is generally irrelevant and inadmissible.
R v Pilgrim, 2017 ONCA 309
A prosecutor’s desire to create fodder for cross-examination is not a legitimate path to the admission of otherwise irrelevant bad character evidence.
R v ZWC, 2021 ONCA 116
Even where otherwise relevant, bad character evidence may reach a cumulative point after which its admission is no longer proper. Where the defence is prepared to admit the relevant component of bad character evidence, the evidence should not be called.
Hearsay
R v Bradshaw, 2017 SCC 35
Leading case on the principled approach to the admission of hearsay evidence.
R v Borel, 2021 ONCA 16
“Narrative” is too often used by counsel, supported by trial judges, as a vehicle for the admission of evidence that is otherwise inadmissible and prejudicial. The practice of using this route to admit prejudicial evidence must stop.
R v Caesar, 2016 ONCA 599
The accused may tender the indictment recording a co-accused’s guilty plea through the public documents exception to the rule against hearsay.
Opinion
R v McManus, 2017 ONCA 188
A police officer who is part of the investigation into the accused should generally not be permitted to give expert testimony in the same case.
Scott v BC, 2013 BCCA 554
It is an error to afford police witnesses a “presumption of reliability” simply because of their role as police officers.
R v CG, 2018 ONSC 6204
Defence experts generally are not required to disclose draft copies of their reports to the Crown.
Statements by the accused
R v Lo, 2020 ONCA 622
Admissions made by an accused person in a prior proceeding are admissible against them in subsequent proceedings.
R v Charlouis, 2017 ONSC 2855
Failure by police to create a contemporaneous record of an alleged statement by the accused can raise a doubt about voluntariness.
R v Tessier, 2020 ABCA 289
Lack of caution can raise a doubt about voluntariness.
Other sexual activity
R v RV, 2019 SCC 41
Section 276 applies regardless of whether it is the accused or the Crown who seeks to tender evidence of the complainant’s other sexual activity.
R v Goldfinch, 2019 SCC 38
“Relationship” evidence is not generally admissible as an exception to s. 276. It may be admitted where (a) the accused seeks to rely on it to establish an honest but mistaken belief in consent or (b) where it is otherwise relevant to the complainant’s credibility, as for example through an inconsistency.
R v Barton, 2019 SCC 33
Section 276 applies to non-sexual offences where an offences listed in s. 276(1) have some connection to the offence charged.