Canada Case Law

R. v. Thomson

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge properly conducted a meaningful s.632 screening and did not err in declining to stand aside juror no.9, the jury instructions on reasonable doubt and witness reliability were not misleading, the verdict was open to the jury on the evidence, and the sentencing judge permissibly rejected the expert evidence and imposed a fit sentence given the gravity of the offence and the appellant's antecedents.

Source excerpt

• Sexual assault
• Reasonable doubt
• Jury bias and stand-aside
• Witness reliability
• Expert evidence on risk
• Publication ban

Read case analysis

R. v. Blake

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Trial counsel's persistent elicitation of extremely prejudicial bad character evidence portraying the appellant as a serial rapist fell well outside the range of competent representation and that evidence could not be cured by limiting instructions; combined with counsel's failure to request timely disclosure of the complainant's outstanding arrest warrant and criminal record, the cumulative prejudice rendered the verdicts unreliable and necessitated a new trial.

Source excerpt

• Sexual assault
• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Bad character evidence
• Challenge for cause (parks)
• Racial bias in jury selection
• Disclosure of witness arrest warrant and criminal record

Read case analysis

R. v. Ali

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court allowed challenge-for-cause questions on pretrial publicity and racial/religious bias, but rejected immigration-status questions and intrusive stereotype-based questions.

• Challenge for cause
• Juror impartiality
• Pretrial publicity
• Racial and religious prejudice
• Judicial notice
• Parks question

Read case analysis

R. v. Glasgow

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court held that Parks-style questioning must be expanded consistent with Chouhan and recent provincial decisions to probe systemic and unconscious racial bias, that the trial judge (not counsel) will pose the agreed publicity and expanded race challenge questions, and that jurors who are empanelled will be excused to the jury room until the remaining jurors have been selected to preserve privacy and impartiality.

Source excerpt

• Challenge for cause
• Racial bias
• Pre-trial publicity
• Juror exclusion order
• Unconscious bias
• Juror privacy

Read case analysis

R. v. Coban

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court addressed a defence challenge for cause in a high-profile criminal trial, allowing limited anti-bias questioning but refusing offence-specific juror questions.

• Challenge for cause
• Pre-trial publicity
• Juror bias
• Anti-bias jury instructions
• Offence-based bias
• Child pornography

Read case analysis

R. v. James

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court refused the Crown’s request to ask jurors about COVID-19 vaccination status during jury selection, finding no basis to use that information to stand aside or excuse panellists.

• Juror vaccination status
• Excusal and stand-aside under ss.632-633
• Privacy of jurors
• Court discretion in jury management
• Jury-selection
• Juror-privacy

Read case analysis

R. v. Subramaniam

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held Bill C-75’s abolition of peremptory challenges did not apply to the accused’s upcoming jury selection, because the right had already vested.

• Peremptory challenges
• Retrospectivity
• Coming-into-force
• Interpretation act
• Charter ss.11(d) and 11(f)
• Peremptory-challenges

Read case analysis

R. v. Evans

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The court dismissed the appeals against conviction because (1) appellants had applied under s.640(2.1) and thus static triers were properly engaged or they abandoned rotating triers, (2) the trial judge properly exercised discretion to control cross-examination and to gatekeep expert and proposed defence expert evidence under the Mohan/White Burgess framework, (3) extrinsic misconduct evidence was relevant and its probative value on the criminal organization issues outweighed prejudicial effect, and (4) the charge fairly summarized evidence and positions; on sentencing the court upheld all se…

Source excerpt

• Jury selection (rotating vs static triers)
• Admissibility of expert evidence
• Scope of cross-examination
• Extrinsic misconduct evidence
• Criminal organization offences (s.467.1)
• Pre-sentence custody credit (s.719)

Read case analysis

R. v. Downey

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The trial judge holds discretion to exclude sworn jurors from the courtroom during an ongoing challenge for cause using rotating triers where such exclusion is necessary to preserve juror impartiality and ensure a fair trial; that discretion was properly exercised to exclude sworn jurors after they fulfilled trier duties until the full jury was empanelled.

Source excerpt

• Challenge for cause
• Exclusion of jurors
• Rotating triers
• Impartiality
• Pretrial publicity

Read case analysis

R. v. Phagura

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a defence application to dismiss the jury after one juror was excused for prior contact with defence counsel, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Juror disqualification
• Challenge for cause
• Reasonable-apprehension-of-bias
• Juror-disqualification
• Jury-selection

Read case analysis