R. v. Hart (N.L.), [2014] 2 SCR 544
| Jurisdiction | Federal Jurisdiction (Canada) |
| Judge | McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ. |
| Subject Matter | CRIMINAL LAW,CIVIL RIGHTS |
| Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
| Date | 31 July 2014 |
-
- 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
10 practice notes
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 18 September 22, 2017)
...Pearson, for the respondent Keywords: Criminal Law, First Degree Murder, Sexual Assault, Evidence, Inculpatory Statements, R. v Hart, [2014] SCC 52, One Party Consent Wiretap, Jury Directions, Appeal Dismissed R v. Verdon, 2017 ONCA 721 [Laskin, Trotter and Fairburn JJ.A] Counsel: Eva Taché......
-
R. v. Ibrahim, 2020 ONSC 3024
...to tell them the truth (so that they could help him, which was the feigned goal of their “Mr. Big operation”). See R. v. Hart (2014), 312 C.C.C. (3d) 250 (S.C.C.). Their criminal organization was said to have corrupt connections with the police. When asked by the undercover officers about I......
-
Smith v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario et al., 2016 ONSC 7222
...claim malicious prosecution. The “Mr. Big” investigation at issue took place before the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Hart, 2014 SCC 52, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 544, in which the Court ruled that evidence obtained in this way is presumptively inadmissible, placing the onus on the Crown ......
-
R. v. Niemi, 2017 ONCA 720
...Big statements would have gained admission even if the trial judge had the benefit of the standards subsequently developed in R. v Hart, [2014] SCC 52, 2 S.C.R. 544. The details provided by Mr. Niemi interlinked so closely with the unpublished details of the killing that the probative value......
Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
-
R. v. Ibrahim, 2020 ONSC 3024
...to tell them the truth (so that they could help him, which was the feigned goal of their “Mr. Big operation”). See R. v. Hart (2014), 312 C.C.C. (3d) 250 (S.C.C.). Their criminal organization was said to have corrupt connections with the police. When asked by the undercover officers about I......
-
Smith v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario et al., 2016 ONSC 7222
...claim malicious prosecution. The “Mr. Big” investigation at issue took place before the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Hart, 2014 SCC 52, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 544, in which the Court ruled that evidence obtained in this way is presumptively inadmissible, placing the onus on the Crown ......
-
R. v. Niemi, 2017 ONCA 720
...Big statements would have gained admission even if the trial judge had the benefit of the standards subsequently developed in R. v Hart, [2014] SCC 52, 2 S.C.R. 544. The details provided by Mr. Niemi interlinked so closely with the unpublished details of the killing that the probative value......
-
R. v. Brown,
...officers were subject to the new common law rule of evidence that emerged out of the Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. Hart (2014), 312 C.C.C. (3d) 250 (S.C.C.). Accordingly, the confessions were presumptively inadmissible and the onus was on the Crown, on a balance of probabil......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 18 September 22, 2017)
...Pearson, for the respondent Keywords: Criminal Law, First Degree Murder, Sexual Assault, Evidence, Inculpatory Statements, R. v Hart, [2014] SCC 52, One Party Consent Wiretap, Jury Directions, Appeal Dismissed R v. Verdon, 2017 ONCA 721 [Laskin, Trotter and Fairburn JJ.A] Counsel: Eva Taché......