R. v. Burke-Whittaker
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Respondent's Motion to Adduce New Evidence Allowed; Appeal Dismissed Orally With Reasons to Follow
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court allowed the respondent’s motion to adduce new evidence and dismissed the appeal.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; respondent’s motion to adduce new evidence allowed.
Orders
- The respondent’s motion to adduce new evidence is allowed.
- The appeal is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
His Majesty The King
Appellant Counsel: Samuel Greene and Adrianna MillsTerrell Burke-Whittaker
Respondent Counsel: Ricardo Golec and Kim SchofieldDirector of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions
Intervener Counsel: Antoine Désaulniers and Gabriel BervinAttorney General of British Columbia
Intervener Counsel: Megan A. Street and Michelle BookerAttorney General of Alberta
Intervener Counsel: Christine Rideout, K.C.Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario)
Intervener Counsel: Chris Sewrattan and Sweta TejpalWomen in Canadian Criminal Defence
Intervener Counsel: Keara Lundrigan, Neha Chugh, Megan Stephens and Hamna AnwarQueen’s Prison Law Clinic
Intervener Counsel: Chris Rudnicki and Theresa DonkorBlack Legal Action Centre
Intervener Counsel: Jean-Simon Schoenholz, Nadine Tawdy, Shanika Gordon and Demar Kemar HewittCommunity & Legal Aid Services Program
Intervener Counsel: Scarlet Smith, Steven Yu and Subodh BharatiTrial Lawyers Association of British Columbia
Intervener Counsel: Sarah Pringle and Merran Hergert03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Respondent's Motion to Adduce New Evidence Allowed; Appeal Dismissed Orally With Reasons to Follow
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondent’s motion to adduce new evidence should be allowed.
- 02
Whether the appeal should be dismissed.
05
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court allowed the respondent’s motion to adduce new evidence and dismissed the appeal.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; respondent’s motion to adduce new evidence allowed.
- The respondent’s motion to adduce new evidence is allowed.
- The appeal is dismissed.
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: R. v. Burke-Whittaker*
Appeal Heard and Judgment Rendered: May 19, 2026
Reasons for Judgment: to follow
Docket: 41786
Between:
His Majesty The King
Appellant
and
Terrell Burke-Whittaker
Respondent
and
Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions,
Attorney General of British Columbia,
Attorney General of Alberta,
Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario),
Women in Canadian Criminal Defence,
Queen’s Prison Law Clinic,
Black Legal Action Centre,
Community & Legal Aid Services Program and
Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia
Interveners
Coram : Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Côté, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ.
Unanimous Judgment Read By:
(para.
1)
Wagner C.J.
Counsel:
Samuel Greene and Adrianna Mills , for the appellant.
Ricardo Golec and Kim Schofield , for the respondent.
Antoine Désaulniers and Gabriel Bervin , for the intervener Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions.
Megan A. Street and Michelle Booker , for the intervener Attorney General of British Columbia.
Christine Rideout , K.C. , for the intervener Attorney General of Alberta.
Chris Sewrattan and Sweta Tejpal , for the intervener Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario).
Keara Lundrigan , Neha Chugh , Megan Stephens and Hamna Anwar , for the intervener Women in Canadian Criminal Defence.
Chris Rudnicki and Theresa Donkor , for the intervener Queen’s Prison Law Clinic.
Jean-Simon Schoenholz , Nadine Tawdy , Shanika Gordon and Demar Kemar Hewitt , for the intervener Black Legal Action Centre.
Scarlet Smith , Steven Yu and Subodh Bharati , for the intervener Community & Legal Aid Services Program.
Sarah Pringle and Merran Hergert , for the intervener Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia.
Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports .
* Neutral citation to follow.
No. 41786
May 20, 2026
Le 20 mai 2026
Coram: Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Côté, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ.
Coram : Le juge en chef Wagner et les juges Karakatsanis, Côté, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal, O’Bonsawin et Moreau
BETWEEN:
His Majesty The King
Appellant
- and -
Terrell Burke-Whittaker
Respondent
- and -
Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General of Alberta, Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario), Women in Canadian Criminal Defence, Queen’s Prison Law Clinic, Black Legal Action Centre, Community & Legal Aid Services Program and Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia
Interveners
ENTRE :
Sa Majesté le Roi
Appelant
- et -
Terrell Burke-Whittaker
Intimé
- et -
Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales, procureur général de la Colombie-Britannique, procureur général de l’Alberta, Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario), Women in Canadian Criminal Defence, Queen’s Prison Law Clinic, Black Legal Action Centre, Community & Legal Aid Services Program et Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia
Intervenants
JUDGMENT
The respondent’s motion to adduce new evidence is allowed. The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number COA-24-CR-0590, 2025 ONCA 142 , dated February 26, 2025, was heard on May 19, 2026, and the Court on that day delivered the following judgment orally:
The Chief Justice — We are all of the view to dismiss the appeal. Reasons to follow.
JUGEMENT
La requête en production de nouveaux éléments de preuve présentée par l’intimé est accueillie. L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro COA-24-CR-0590, 2025 ONCA 142 , daté du 26 février 2025, a été entendu le 19 mai 2026 et la Cour a prononcé oralement le même jour le jugement suivant :
[ traduction ]
Le juge en chef — Nous sommes tous et toutes d’avis de rejeter le pourvoi. Motifs à suivre.
C.J.C.
J.C.C.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.