Counsel of Choice
Counsel of Choice In a prior blog a wrote about cases that dissuade police agencies from “steering” detainees to speak with duty counsel (see for
Counsel of Choice In a prior blog a wrote about cases that dissuade police agencies from “steering” detainees to speak with duty counsel (see for
Strip Searches engage important Charter Rights. The following cases shed some light on the constitutionality of strip searches. R. v. Golden 2001 SCJ No 81
Police officers have no power to demand your identification- “The common law does not require a citizen to identify oneself or carry identification of any
Trial Within a Reasonable Time R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 and R v Williamson 2016 SCC 28: The Right to be tried within a
R. v. Guindon (the relevance of 3rd party charter violations) [2015] O.J. No. 7169 2015 ONSC 4317 In this case the issue to be determined
Garofoli Procedure R. v. Burgher, [2014] O.J. No. 6449, 2014 ONSC 4527 PRE-TRIAL RULING THE PROCEDURE PURSUANT TO R. V. GAROFOLI Background: This is a pre-trial application on
Right to Counsel Implementational Duties In considering right to counsel, R v Street, 2016 SKPC 7, provides interesting insight into the nature of implementational duties
Airbag Control Modules In R v Hamilton 2014 ONSC 447, the Court conducts an exhaustive analysis of what constitutes unreasonable search and seizure as per
The “real” reason for the stop (pretext stops) In Canada, Police are given generous police power when stopping motor vehicles. For example, they are allowed
Psychological Detention R. v. Wong 2015 OJ No 5049 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says “everyone has the right on arrest or detention