R (Canada) v Adams

Last updated
R v Adams

Supreme Court of Canada 2.jpg

Hearing: 1995: October 6;
Judgment: 1995: December 21.
Citations R. v. Adams, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 707
Docket No. 24252
Holding
Encouraging victims to come forward and complain facilitates the prosecution and conviction of those guilty of sexual offences. Ultimately, the overall objective of the publication ban ...is to favour the suppression of crime and to improve the administration of justice.
Court Membership
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by The Court

Justice Sopinka wrote for a unanimous court in this appeal from the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench on a case in which a Criminal Code section 486 publication ban was overturned by the trial judge, Justice Feehan, after he had found the primary witnesses for both sides of a sexual assault trial to be unreliable.

John Sopinka Canadian judge

John Sopinka, was a Canadian lawyer and puisne justice on the Supreme Court of Canada, the first Ukrainian-Canadian appointed to the high court.

Court of Queens Bench of Alberta

The Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta is the superior court of the Canadian province of Alberta. The Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in Calgary was relocated to the Calgary Courts Centre in 2007. The Court of Queen's Bench has been located at the Law Courts building in Edmonton since the 1970s.

A publication ban is a court order which prohibits the public or media from disseminating certain details of an otherwise public judicial proceeding. In Canada, publication bans are most commonly issued when the safety or reputation of a victim or witness may be hindered by having their identity openly broadcast in the press. They are also commonly issued when the crime involves minors or is sexual in nature.

Feehan J. considered as policy reasons in favour of lifting the publication ban that: [1]

The Crown applied for leave to appeal directly to the Court from the order of the trial judge, pursuant to s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-26. Mootness was raised by the respondent, and discarded by the court; In any event, even if the appeal were moot it would exercise discretion to hear the appeal. Jurisdiction of this issue was confirmed, and the Supreme Court reinstated the publication ban. Sopinka quoted approvingly Justice Lamer in Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General):

<i>Supreme Court Act</i> Canadian law

The Supreme Court Act is an Act passed by the Parliament of Canada which established the Supreme Court of Canada. It was originally passed in 1875 as the Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act. Although at the time, the Supreme Court was not the supreme authority on Canadian law, as Supreme Court cases could still be appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Mootness

In law, the terms moot and mootness have different meanings in British English and American English. The concept is important in U.S. jurisprudence but is little used elsewhere outside law schools.

Antonio Lamer 16th Chief Justice of Canada

Joseph Antonio Charles Lamer, was a Canadian lawyer, jurist and the 16th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Related Research Articles

Supreme Court of Canada highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Egan v Canada</i> decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513 was one of a trilogy of equality rights cases published by a very divided Supreme Court of Canada in the spring of 1995. It stands today as a landmark Supreme Court case which established that sexual orientation constitutes a prohibited basis of discrimination under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Court system of Canada an article about the court system of Canada

The court system of Canada forms the judicial branch of government, formally known as "The Queen on the Bench", which interprets the law and is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.

<i>R v Wholesale Travel Group Inc</i>

R v Wholesale Travel Group Inc [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the distinction between "true crime" and regulatory offences.

<i>R v Butler</i>

R v Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on pornography and state censorship. In this case, the Court had to balance the right to freedom of expression under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with women's rights. The outcome has been described as a victory for anti-pornography feminism and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, but a loss for alternative sexualities.

<i>New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly)</i> Supreme Court of Canada decision wherein the court ruled that parliamentary privilege is a part of the unwritten constitution

New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision wherein the court has ruled that parliamentary privilege is a part of the unwritten convention in the Constitution of Canada. Therefore, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not apply to members of Nova Scotia House of Assembly when they exercise their inherent privileges of refusing strangers from entering the House.

<i>R v Askov</i> Canadian court case

R v Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199, is a 1990 appeal heard before the Supreme Court of Canada which established the criteria and standards by which Canadian courts judge whether an accused's right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 11(b) "to be tried within a reasonable time" has been infringed.

<i>R v Stinchcombe</i>

R v Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on the disclosure of evidence in a trial and is considered by most to be one of the most significant criminal law cases of the decade. The Court found that the Crown had a duty to provide the defence with all evidence that could possibly be relevant to the case, regardless of whether the Crown plans to call that evidence at trial or not, or whether it helps or hurts the Crown's case. This case put to rest the long-standing issue of whether the Crown could purposely deny the defence evidence that the Crown found would be harmful to their case.

<i>Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corp</i>

Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corp, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on publication bans and their relation to the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was held that judges have a common law discretionary authority to impose publication bans on information revealed in a criminal trial. The judge, however, must weigh competing rights, such as freedom of expression and right to a fair trial, to minimize the violation of rights. It was further held that the media has a right to appeal a decision of a publication ban.

The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (SKCA) is a Canadian appellate court.

<i>Borowski v Canada (AG)</i>

Borowski v Canada (AG), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on mootness of an appealed legal issue. The Court declined to decide whether the fetus had a right to life under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Had they found in favour of Borowski, stricter laws against abortion in Canada would have to have been enacted. Thus, along with the later Supreme Court case Tremblay v Daigle (1989), Borowski "closed off litigation opportunities by [the] pro-life".

<i>R v Jobidon</i>

R v Jobidon, [1991] 2 SCR 714 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court held that consent cannot be used as a defence for a criminal act such as assault which may cause "serious hurt or non-trivial bodily harm".

<i>R v Mohan</i>

R v Mohan1994 CanLII 80, [1994] 2 SCR 9 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the use of expert witnesses in trial testimony.

<i>R v Noble</i>

R v Noble, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 874 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to silence under section 11(c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court held that the silence of an accused cannot be given any independent weight.

The Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories is the name of two different superior courts for the Canadian territory of the Northwest Territories, which have existed at different times.

The passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 allowed for the provision of challenging the constitutionality of laws governing prostitution law in Canada in addition to interpretative case law. Other legal proceedings have dealt with ultra vires issues. In 2013, three provisions of the current law were overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, with a twelve-month stay of effect. In June 2014, the Government introduced amending legislation in response.

Michael Moldaver is a Canadian judge. He has been a puisne justice on the Supreme Court of Canada since his 2011 appointment by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Before his elevation to the nation's top court, he served as a judge at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario for over 20 years. A former criminal lawyer, Moldaver is considered an expert in both Canadian criminal law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>R v Mentuck</i>

Clayton Mentuck, a native lad, was accused of killing a 14 year old teenager, Amanda Cook, in 1996. His first murder trial ended with a stay of proceedings in April 1998 after the trial judge ruled that certain statements, because police had violated his Charter rights, could not be heard by the jury. In April 1998 lawyers revealed that a tape of Mr. Mentuck's police interrogation had been doctored, causing Mr Justice John A. Menzies of the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba to issue the stay.

References

  1. ↑ canlii.org: "R. v. Adams, (1995) 4 SCR 707, 1995 CanLII 56 (SCC)"
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.