Cases Flashcards
GLADUE
R v. Gladue was the first Supreme Court case to interpret the new provision in the
Criminal Code (section 718.2 (e)) regarding court proceedings with Aboriginal offenders.
The appellant in this case was charged and convicted with manslaughter and a 10 year
weapon prohibition. This Supreme Court decision provided the foundational knowledge
for future proceedings involving Aboriginal offenders living off reserve. This case
resulted in the creation of Gladue Court and factors specially made for offenders with
Aboriginal heritage. Gladue Court proposes sentence options that are more inline with
Aboriginal traditions than typical imprisonments. Gladue factors can be described as
principles in which the judge considers the unique experience of Aboriginal offenders. A
Gladue court judge can make decisions based on Aboriginal systemic and current issues
including Residential school trauma, discrimination, loss of language, removal from land,
foster care, physical abuse, and substance abuse.
, MCNEIL
R v. McNeil looked into the issues surrounding the disclosure of information
between the Crown and Defence. As a result of these issues, the disclosure package was
created to ensure that disclosure of relevant information would not impact the results of
the trial. The disclosure package was also formulated to ensure that, any information
regarding misconduct can be given to the defence, preventing law enforcement workers
from hiding behind their past. The gatekeeper role was a defining factor in the case, as it
illustrates the importance of studying relevant information regarding the credibility of
officers and other law enforcement workers. Any misconduct that occurred, the
gatekeeper must determine the severity of the misconduct which is done by looking at
the date the crime occurred, the conditions in which it occurred, and how it will affect
witness reliability and credibility. R.v O’Connor and R. v. Stinchcombe are the two cases
that helped bring the importance of disclosing information forward in the McNeil case. R
v. Ruthowsky, a case that looked into both R.v. O’Conner and R.v. Stinchcombe, helping
form the important results of both cases.
, W.D
The cases that involve sexual assault are hard to resolve due to the intimate
nature of the offence. In this case, the crown needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that an accused person is guilty of the offence with which he is charged before he can be
convicted. In this case due to the lack of proper evidence and witnesses this case was
dismissed when it was reapplied at the Supreme Court of Canada. Finally, the Supreme
Court announced to undo the W. (D.) formula in S. (W.D.), emphasizing the fact that
what matters is the substance and not the form.
Finally, the questions of credibility were introduced:
1. First, if they believe the evidence provided by the accused, then they must acquit.
2. Second, even if they don’t believe the testimony/evidence provided by the
accused but it creates a reasonable doubt, then they must acquit.
3. Third, if they are not left in any reasonable doubt by the evidence provided by the
accused that they do accept and are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that
the accused is guilty of the charge
*This case highlights the importance of police corroborating evidence
Wood Shafer
This case is about the importance of note taking and completing notes prior to
speaking to counsel, that way they stay reliable and trustworthy. Case rose from two
independent police shootings towards civilian.
Police officers are responsible for writing down notes in a precise and organized
manner that is comprehensive. After an investigation or incident, the officer attending
the scene must take notes as quickly as possible. Officers are not entitled to seek legal
advice before creating the notes; nobody else is allowed to write in another officer’s
notebook.
The only exception is when an officer is deemed to be a subject officer, the officer
that is being investigated for causing death or bodily harm. Then they can speak to a
lawyer beforehand.
R vs Jordan
An extremely important case that deals with section 11(b) of the Charter. This
section states that everyone charged with an offence has the right to be tried within a
reasonable time. In the case of R v Jordan, the trial was delayed for a total of 49.5
months, 32.5 of which were attributed to institutional delay. The Supreme Court of
Canada ruled that this was in fact unreasonable and created a new concept, the
presumptive ceiling. This ceiling is 18 months for provincial court and 30 months for
superior court. If a delay goes beyond these limits the onus is on the Crown to prove
exceptional circumstances as to why the delay was unavoidable. Jordan created a crucial
guideline which puts pressure on the courts and on the police to compile their cases and
get trials resolved in a quick manner. It also resulted in mass hiring of crown attorneys in
a attempt to solve the issue of institutional delay
Coffin
In 1953 Wilbert Coffin was charged and convicted for the murder of a member of
a hunting party. There was no physical evidence pointing to Coffin and there were no
witnesses involved. This case was very controversial Coffin had not received a fair trial
and there was immense pressure from the Québec government to obtain a quick
conviction. This case deals with circumstantial evidence, leading questions, and the
contradiction of the defences own witness. The main take away from this case is how
the pressure of the government and outside media can cause police officers to skip steps
in concluding investigations.
*recognized the importance of direct evidence, it is dangerous to have a case built off of
circumstantial evidence alon
Oconnor
The O’Connor case involves the accused, Hubert Patrick O’Connor, being brought
into the Supreme Court of Canada under the charges of sexual assault against 4
aboriginal women. This case introduced the O’Connor Application and changed how
further sexual offence cases are handled by the courts. The first step in the O’Connor
procedure is for the person seeking production to satisfy the court that the documents
are likely relevant to the proceedings. If the applicant can demonstrate perceived
relevance then the third-party record holder may be ordered to produce the documents
for the court’s inspection to determine whether production should be ordered,
Brown Dunn
BROWN v. DUNN is a century-old case that brings a significant rule during the
cross-examination stage. The rule is that when a witness is giving evidence, and you
intend to call evidence that contradicts them, you must put the substance of that
contradictory evidence to the witness DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION and allow them to
comment on it. It is a rule of fairness based on the principle that it is unfair to deny a
witness the opportunity to explain a point that will later be used to invite criticism or
disbelief in their evidence. It is also in the interests of justice to put contrary evidence to
a witness for any possible explanation for the contradiction to be placed before the
court.
Take good note, this rule doesnt allow witness’ to be ambushed “anti-ambush rule”
