Facts
Ramnarine Khelawon was accused of aggravated assault, uttering a death threat, assault causing bodily harm, and assault with a weapon. The offences involved five residents of a nursing home, in which Khelawon worked as the manager. Four of the alleged victims died before trial from unrelated causes. The fifth was found incompetent to testify. Two of the deceased complainants, Mr. Skupien and Mr. Dinino, had given videotaped statements to police, concerning the alleged incidents.
Since the declarants were deceased, the videotaped statements became hearsay, and the issue for the trial judge was whether or not the statements were reliable enough to be admitted.
Hearsay is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement that is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held that prior testimonial statements of witnesses who have since become unavailable may not be admitted without cross-examination.
Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 1 W.L.R. 965 (1956), is a leading Privy Council case that defined the scope of the hearsay rule. It was a case heard on appeal from the Supreme Court of the Federation of Malaya.
R v Khan [1990] 2 SCR 531 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision that began a series of major changes to the hearsay rule and the rules regarding the use of children as witnesses in court. In this case, and subsequently in R v Smith (1992), R v B (KG) (1993), R v U (FJ) (1995), R v Starr (2000), and finally, R v Khelawon (2006), the Court developed the “principled approach” to hearsay, where hearsay statements can be admitted if they are sufficiently reliable and necessary.
R v Starr [2000] 2 SCR 144 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision that re-evaluated several principles of evidence. In particular, they held the "principled approach" hearsay evidence under R v Khan and R v Smith (1992) can be equally used to exclude otherwise admissible hearsay evidence. In addition, the Court examined the judge's charge to the jury on the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
R v Handy, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908, 2002 SCC 56, is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on similar fact evidence. The Court proposed what is known as the Handy test for determining whether past occurrences that resemble the crime can be admitted as evidence.
Hearsay evidence, in a legal forum, is testimony from an under-oath witness who is reciting an out-of-court statement, the content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.
R v B (KG), [1993] 1 SCR 740, popularly known as the KGB case, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements as proof of the truth of their contents. Prior to this case, prior inconsistent statements made by a witness other than an accused could merely be used to impeach the witness's credibility, not for substantive purposes. Here, the Court held that if the statements could be found to be both necessary and reliable then the statements could be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule.
R v Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80, [1994] 2 SCR 9 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the use of expert witnesses in trial testimony.
R v Krymowski, 2005 SCC 7, [2005] 1 SCR 101 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on hate speech against the Roma people, also known as "Gypsies".
R v Smith, [1992] 2 SCR 915 is a leading decision on hearsay by the Supreme Court of Canada. This decision, along with R v Khan (1990), began what is called the "hearsay revolution", supplementing the traditional categorical approach to hearsay exceptions with a new "principled approach" based on reliability and necessity of testimony.
R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9, section 10 and section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court created a number of factors to consider when determining whether a person had been detained for the purpose of sections 9 and 10 of the Charter. The Court also created a new test for determining whether evidence obtained by a Charter breach should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, replacing the Collins test.
Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the federal Criminal Code, as well as statutory provisions relating to hate publications in three provinces and one territory.
Evidence-based prosecution refers to a collection of techniques utilized by prosecutors in domestic violence cases to convict abusers without the cooperation of an alleged victim. It is widely practiced within the American legal system by specialized prosecutors and state's attorneys and relies on utilizing a variety of evidence to prove the guilt of an abuser with limited or adverse participation by the abuser's victim, or even no participation at all.
Michael Moldaver is a former Canadian judge. He was a puisne justice on the Supreme Court of Canada from his 2011 appointment by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper until his retirement in 2022. 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.
Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc, 2007 SCC 37, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 20, is a Supreme Court of Canada judgment on Canadian copyright law, specifically on the issue of indirect infringement and its application to parallel importation. Kraft Canada sued Euro-Excellence Inc. for copyright infringement due to their importation of Côte d’Or and Toblerone chocolate bars from Europe into Canada. A majority of the court found that the copyright claim could not succeed, although they split on whether the claim failed due to the rights of an exclusive licensee or due to the scope of copyright law.
R v Baker [1989] 1 NZLR 738 was a decision of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand concerning the admissibility of hearsay evidence in a criminal trial. The judgment of President Sir Robin Cooke's created a common law exception to the rule against hearsay evidence in situations where the evidence is reliable and the witness unavailable. This principle was incorporated into the codification of the hearsay rule in the Evidence Act 2006.
R v Ipeelee is a Supreme Court of Canada decision which reaffirmed the court's previous holdings in R v Gladue, in that when sentencing an Indigenous person, every sentencing judge must consider: (a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular Indigenous individual before the courts; and (b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the person before the court because of their particular Indigenous heritage or connection.
R v Hutchinson, 2014 SCC 19 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on sexual assault and consent under the Criminal Code. The Court upheld the sexual assault conviction of a defendant in a condom sabotage case, holding that the complainant's consent to sexual activity with him had been vitiated by fraud when he poked holes in his condom.
In O'C(P) v. DPP (2000) 3 IR 87[1]; (2000) IESC 58 the Irish Supreme Court examined the issues of "delay" and the right to a fair trial. The Court stated that under Article 38.1 of the Constitution, provides that no one shall be tried for a crime "save in due course of law," and stated anyone accused with an offence has a right to a trial that is performed with reasonable expedition. The Complainant's delay in informing the authorities of the alleged sexual abuse was found to be justified by the Court given the circumstances of the alleged offence. The Court found that the Applicant's ability to defend himself had been substantially affected by the delay, creating a real possibility of an unfair trial. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the complainant's appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court.
