Foreword

• Author: Gary T. Trotter
• Profession: Court of Appeal for Ontario
• Pages: 17-18

xvii

Foreword

The practice of criminal law is demanding. The skill set of modern-day criminal law-

yers, both Crown and defence, must include a firm grasp of several bodies of law—

substantive criminal law, criminal procedure, constitutional law, evidence, and

sentencing. Keeping current can be overwhelming, especially where the Charter is

concerned.

Our Charter jurisprudence is vast and steadily accumulating. The scope of the

substantive legal rights (ss7 to 13) is litigated daily in the criminal courts. But just as

important as the substance of these rights (and others) is the deceptively complex

remedial framework established in sections24 and 52 of our Constitution. As LaForestJ

said over three decades ago in Rv Rahey, “Just as there can be no right without a

remedy, so there can be no remedy without a court to enforce it eectively.”1 For the

Charter claimant, an eective remedy—whether it be the exclusion of evidence, a

reduced sentence, striking down a statutory provision, or a stay of proceedings—is

the entire point of this litigation exercise.

Responding to this reality, Matthew Asma and Matthew Gourlay have produced

an impressive book devoted exclusively to Charter remedies in the criminal process.

It is a fine addition to Emond’s Criminal Law Series.

Mr Asma and Mr Gourlay are the ideal team for this project. As with other volumes

in this series, this book reflects the collective experience of two accomplished lawyers,

one a defence counsel (Gourlay), the other a Crown counsel (Asma). The result is a

sophisticated text that is balanced; a text that can be relied on by all involved in the

criminal process.

The book comes in at just over 250 pages, and the writing is crisp and economical.

The reader is spared lengthy block quotations. The authors distill the relevant cases

with clarity and precision. By focusing on the busy criminal law practitioner, the authors

avoid discursive tours down historical trails, as well as impromptu stops at philosophi-

cal vistas. This is not to say that the writing is uncritical. The authors make useful

appraisals about the coherence of various strands of jurisprudence and oer measured

suggestions where they see the need for future clarification.

1 R v Rahey, [1987] 1 SCR 588 at 630. The Supreme Court has referred to this legal maxim in

many other decisions.

© 2023 Emond Montgomery Publications. All Rights Reserved.