R. v. Lo, 2020 ONCA 622
| Jurisdiction | Ontario |
| Judge | Watt, Hourigan and Harvison Young JJ.A. |
| Citation | 2020 ONCA 622 |
| Date | 08 October 2020 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ontario) |
| Docket Number | C65179 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
15 practice notes
-
R. v. Schneider, 2022 SCC 34
...865; R. v. Gordon Gray, 2021 QCCA 882; R. v. Foreman (2002), 169 C.C.C. (3d) 489; R. v. Osmar, 2007 ONCA 50, 84 O.R. (3d) 321; R. v. Lo, 2020 ONCA 622, 152 O.R. (3d) 609; R. v. Scott, 2013 MBCA 7, 288 Man. R. (2d) 188; R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908; R. v. Robertson, [1987] 1......
-
R. v. F.I.,
...As pointed out in R v Lo, 2020 ONCA 622, 393 CCC (3d) 543 [Lo], there was, at an earlier time, some apparent controversy about the legal basis upon which statements made by an accused were admissible. The controversy focused upon whether such statements were to be treated as hearsay or whet......
-
R. v. Atwima,
...distraction and confusion: see R. v. Shearing, 2002 SCC 58, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 33, at para. 68. See also: Handy, at paras. 31, 36; R. v. Lo, 2020 ONCA 622, 152 O.R. (3d) 609, at paras. 110-11. Of course, many of these concerns for prejudice will be attenuated, like in this case, where the appl......
-
R. v. Norris,
...the accused has done, but based on the kind of person the trier of fact perceives the accused to be: Handy, at paras. 31, 36; R. v. Lo, 2020 ONCA 622, at para. 110. Reasoning prejudice results where similar act evidence gives rise to confusion and distracts the trier of fact from its proper......
Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
-
R. v. Schneider, 2022 SCC 34
...865; R. v. Gordon Gray, 2021 QCCA 882; R. v. Foreman (2002), 169 C.C.C. (3d) 489; R. v. Osmar, 2007 ONCA 50, 84 O.R. (3d) 321; R. v. Lo, 2020 ONCA 622, 152 O.R. (3d) 609; R. v. Scott, 2013 MBCA 7, 288 Man. R. (2d) 188; R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908; R. v. Robertson, [1987] 1......
-
R. v. F.I.,
...As pointed out in R v Lo, 2020 ONCA 622, 393 CCC (3d) 543 [Lo], there was, at an earlier time, some apparent controversy about the legal basis upon which statements made by an accused were admissible. The controversy focused upon whether such statements were to be treated as hearsay or whet......
-
R. v. Atwima,
...distraction and confusion: see R. v. Shearing, 2002 SCC 58, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 33, at para. 68. See also: Handy, at paras. 31, 36; R. v. Lo, 2020 ONCA 622, 152 O.R. (3d) 609, at paras. 110-11. Of course, many of these concerns for prejudice will be attenuated, like in this case, where the appl......
-
R. v. Norris,
...the accused has done, but based on the kind of person the trier of fact perceives the accused to be: Handy, at paras. 31, 36; R. v. Lo, 2020 ONCA 622, at para. 110. Reasoning prejudice results where similar act evidence gives rise to confusion and distracts the trier of fact from its proper......
Request a trial to view additional results