R. v. Hynes (D.W.)

Judgment Cited authorities (54) Cited in (132) Precedent Map Related
JurisdictionFederal Jurisdiction (Canada)
JudgeMcLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
Date06 December 2001
Citation(2001), 278 N.R. 299 (SCC),2001 SCC 82
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)

R. v. Hynes (D.W.) (2001), 278 N.R. 299 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. DE.003

Dwayne W. Hynes (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General for Ontario, The Attorney General of Manitoba, The Attorney General of British Columbia and The Attorney General for Alberta (interveners)

(27443; 2001 SCC 82)

Indexed As: R. v. Hynes (D.W.)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

December 6, 2001.

Summary:

The accused was charged with causing death by criminal negligence (s. 220 of the Criminal Code), failure to stop at an accident scene (s. 252(1)(b)), and impaired driving (s. 255(3)). The accused applied for a declar­ation that a preliminary inquiry judge or justice was a "court of competent jurisdic­tion" under s. 24(1) of the Charter for the purpose of excluding Charter-offending evidence under s. 24(2).

The Newfoundland Provincial Court, in an unreported oral decision, dismissed the ap­plication. The accused applied for an order in the nature of certiorari and mandamus to direct the preliminary inquiry judge to con­duct the inquiry under s. 24.

The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, in an unreported oral decision, dismissed the application. The accused ap­pealed.

The Newfoundland Court of Appeal, Green, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. See 177 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 232; 543 A.P.R. 232. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Major, Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 8363

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Jurisdiction (incl. court of competent jurisdiction) - Prelimi­nary inquiry judge - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a justice presiding at a preliminary inquiry was not a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of an application under s. 24(1) of the Charter to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) - In particular, the power of a preliminary inquiry justice to exclude confessions under s. 542(1) of the Criminal Code did not extend to exclusion on Charter grounds - See paragraphs 1 to 50.

Civil Rights - Topic 8504

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Enforcement - Jurisdiction - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8363 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3527

Preliminary inquiry - Jurisdiction - Char­ter issues - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8363 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3528

Preliminary inquiry - Jurisdiction - Whether court of competent jurisdiction under Charter - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8363 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481, folld. [paras. 6, 58].

R. v. Smith (M.H.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 102 N.R. 205; 63 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 7 C.R.(4th) 117; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [paras. 6, 101].

R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; 90 N.R. 321; 32 O.A.C. 161; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 67 C.R.(3d) 113; 38 C.R.R. 82, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Robinson (D.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 683; 194 N.R. 1; 72 B.C.A.C. 161; 119 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 385; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 1 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 2 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [paras. 22, 112].

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al. (2001) 279 N.R. 345 (S.C.C.), appld. [paras. 23, 61].

R. v. Caccamo, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 786; 4 N.R. 133; 21 C.C.C.(2d) 257, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Skogman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 93; 54 N.R. 34; 13 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [paras. 30, 78].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Chew, [1968] 2 C.C.C. 127 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Girimonte (F.) (1997), 105 O.A.C. 337; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 33 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Richards (M.) (1997), 100 O.A.C. 215; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 377 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

United States of America v. Shephard, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 9 N.R. 215; 30 C.C.C.(2d) 424; 70 D.L.R.(3d) 136; 34 C.R.N.S. 207, refd to. [paras. 34, 63].

R. v. Patterson, [1970] S.C.R. 409; 10 C.R.N.S. 55; 72 W.W.R.(N.S.) 35; 2 C.C.C.(2d) 229; 9 D.L.R.(3d) 398, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183; 57 C.R.(3d) 289; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 39 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 33 C.R.R. 275, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, refd to. [para. 40].

Kourtessis v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81; [1993] 4 W.W.R. 225; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 286, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 29 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122, refd to. [paras. 42, 121].

R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 46, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 42, 66].

R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341; 216 N.R. 161; 103 O.A.C. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 405, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Oickle (R.F.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3; 259 N.R. 227; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 585 A.P.R. 201, refd to. [paras. 48, 67].

R. v. Pearson (1957), 117 C.C.C. 249 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Ferrero (1981), 29 A.R. 469; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 93 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Ward (1976), 31 C.C.C.(2d) 466 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1977), 31 C.C.C.(2d) 466 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Cook (D.R.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 597; 230 N.R. 83; 112 B.C.A.C. 1; 182 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Rothman, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640; 35 N.R. 485; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 30, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Grossi (E.) (1992), 133 A.R. 278 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. McIntosh (C.) (1999), 128 O.A.C. 69; 141 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Barbeau, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 845; 140 N.R. 211; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. L.R. (1995), 100 C.C.C.(3d) 329 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. George (1991), 50 O.A.C. 391; 5 O.R.(3d) 144 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Dawson (W.) et al. (1998), 107 O.A.C. 375; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Arviv (1985), 8 O.A.C. 92; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 395 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1985] 1 S.C.R. v; 61 N.R. 237; 10 O.A.C. 158; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 395, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Ertel (1987), 20 O.A.C. 257; 58 C.R.(3d) 252; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 398; 30 C.R.R. 209 (C.A.), leave to appeal re­fused, [1987] 2 S.C.R. vii; 86 N.R. 266; 24 O.A.C. 320, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Schwartz, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 673; 8 N.R. 585, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 7, refd to. [para. 110].

Watkins v. Olafson et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 750; 100 N.R. 161; 61 Man.R.(2d) 81; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 577; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 481; 39 B.C.L.R.(2d) 294, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 121].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 542(1) [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alford, D.G., Some Statistics on the Pre­liminary Inquiry in Canada (1984), p. vii [para. 87].

Canada, Department of Justice, Do we still need preliminary inquiries? Options for changes to the Criminal Code, Consulta­tion Paper (1994), p. 4 [para. 79].

Del Buono, V.M., Criminal Procedure in Canada (1982), p. 305 [para. 84].

Freedman, Samuel, Admissions and Con­fessions, in Salhany, Roger E., and Carter, Robert J., Studies in Canadian Criminal Evidence (1972), pp. 95 et seq. [para. 75].

Gold, Alan D., and Presser, Jill R., Let's Not Do Away with the Preliminaries: A Case in Favour of Retaining the Prelimi­nary Inquiry (1996), 1 Can. Crim. L.R. 145, pp. 148 [para. 88]; 154 [para. 94]; 170 [para. 90].

Greenspan, Edward L., and Rosenberg, Marc, The Preliminary Inquiry, in Del Buono, V.M., Criminal Procedure in Canada (1982), p. 305 [para. 84].

Martin, G. Arthur, Preliminary Hearings, in Special Lectures of the Law Society of Upper Canada (1955), pp. 8, 9 [para. 71].

Martin's Annual Criminal Code (2002), p. 907 [para. 56].

Ontario, Report of the Criminal Justice Review Committee (1999), p. 90 [para. 87].

Ontario, Royal Commission Inquiry into Civil Rights, Report No. 1 (1968), vol. 2, pp. 519, 520 [para. 55].

Pomerant, D., and Gilmour, G., A Survey of the Preliminary Inquiry in Canada (1993), pp. 7 [para. 87]; 37, footnote 127 [para. 88].

Salhany, R.E. and Carter, R.J., Studies in Canadian Criminal Evidence (1972), p. 99 [para. 75].

Stuart, Don, Annotation to Mills v. R. (1986), 52 C.R.(3d) 1, pp. 7, 8 [para. 117].

Counsel:

David C. Day, Q.C., for the appellant;

Thomas G. Mills, for the respondent;

S. R. Fainstein, Q.C., and Peter De Freitas, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Robert Kelly, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Darrin R. Davis, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

Alexander Budlovsky, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Colum­bia;

Written submission only by James A. Bowron for the intervener, the Attorney General for Alberta.

Solicitors of Record:

Lewis, Day, St. John's, Newfoundland, for the appellant;

Department of Justice, St. John's, New­foundland, for the respondent;

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Department of Justice, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener, the Attor­ney General of Manitoba;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Brit­ish Columbia;

Department of Justice, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Alberta.

This appeal was heard on February 13, 2001, by McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Basta­rache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada delivered the following decision in both official languages on December 6, 2001, which included the following opinions:

McLachlin, C.J.C. (L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Bastarache and LeBel, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 50;

Major, J. (Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour, JJ., concurring), dissenting - see para­graphs 51 to 125.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
129 practice notes
  • M.M. v. Canada (Minister of Justice)
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 11, 2015
    ...justice, may grant Charter remedies that pertain directly to the circumscribed issues relevant to committal: see, e.g., R. v. Hynes , 2001 SCC 82, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 623; United States of America v. Kwok , 2001 SCC 18, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 532. The second is that the extradition judge, unlike the p......
  • R. v. Harrison (B.)
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • September 5, 2007
    ...(S.C.C.), consd. [para. 143]. R. v. Kokesch (1990), 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 149]. R. v. Hynes (D.W.) (2001), 278 N.R. 299; 208 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 624 A.P.R. 181; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 359 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. Olmstead v. United States of America (1928), ......
  • M.M. v. United States of America
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 11, 2015
    ...v. Charemski, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 679; United States of America v. Dynar, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 462; McVey (Re), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 475; R. v. Hynes, 2001 SCC 82, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 623; United States of America v. Kwok, 2001 SCC 18, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 532; R. v. Sazant, 2004 SCC 77, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 635; R. v......
  • Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 707 et al. v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.) et al., (2004) 351 A.R. 265 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen''s Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • January 28, 2004
    ...481; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 21 C.R.R. 76; 1986 CarswellOnt 116, refd to. [para. 124, footnote 101]. R. v. Hynes (D.W.) [2001] 3 S.C.R. 623; 278 N.R. 299; 208 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 624 A.P.R. 181; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 359; 206 D.L.R.(4th) 483; 47 C.R.(5th) 278; 88 C.R.R.(2d) 222; 2001 CarswellNfl......
    • Get Started for Free
95 cases
  • M.M. v. Canada (Minister of Justice)
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 11, 2015
    ...justice, may grant Charter remedies that pertain directly to the circumscribed issues relevant to committal: see, e.g., R. v. Hynes , 2001 SCC 82, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 623; United States of America v. Kwok , 2001 SCC 18, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 532. The second is that the extradition judge, unlike the p......
  • R. v. Harrison (B.)
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • September 5, 2007
    ...(S.C.C.), consd. [para. 143]. R. v. Kokesch (1990), 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 149]. R. v. Hynes (D.W.) (2001), 278 N.R. 299; 208 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 624 A.P.R. 181; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 359 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. Olmstead v. United States of America (1928), ......
  • M.M. v. United States of America
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 11, 2015
    ...v. Charemski, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 679; United States of America v. Dynar, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 462; McVey (Re), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 475; R. v. Hynes, 2001 SCC 82, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 623; United States of America v. Kwok, 2001 SCC 18, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 532; R. v. Sazant, 2004 SCC 77, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 635; R. v......
  • Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 707 et al. v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.) et al., (2004) 351 A.R. 265 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen''s Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • January 28, 2004
    ...481; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 21 C.R.R. 76; 1986 CarswellOnt 116, refd to. [para. 124, footnote 101]. R. v. Hynes (D.W.) [2001] 3 S.C.R. 623; 278 N.R. 299; 208 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 624 A.P.R. 181; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 359; 206 D.L.R.(4th) 483; 47 C.R.(5th) 278; 88 C.R.R.(2d) 222; 2001 CarswellNfl......
    • Get Started for Free
34 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Criminal Procedure. Third Edition
    • August 29, 2016
    ...BCSC 1306 .............................................................................288 R v Hynes, [2001] 3 SCR 623, 159 CCC (3d) 359, 2001 SCC 82 ...............................60, 292, 296, 298, 302–3, 306, 323, 375, 384 R v I(SP) (2005), 27 CR (6th) 112, 193 CCC (3d) 240, 2005 NUCJ 3 ......
  • Garofoli Review
    • Canada
    • Criminal Law Series Search and Seizure
    • May 3, 2021
    ...then using the same logic, the same rights at a preliminary 99 See Mills v The Queen , [1986] 1 SCR 863, 1986 CanLII 17; R v Hynes , 2001 SCC 82. 100 1998 CanLII 1010, 39 OR (3d) 436 (CA). 101 Ibid at 11 (emphasis added). 102 Supra note 76. 103 Supra note 47. © [2021] Emond Montgomery Publi......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Criminal Law Series Prosecuting and Defending Sexual Offence Cases, 2nd Edition
    • May 3, 2020
    .... 8 Hutchinson , R v , 2014 SCC 19 ..................................................... 401, 403-4 Hynes , R v , 2001 SCC 82 ........................................................... 143, 147 I (J) , R v , 2015 ONCJ 61 ............................................................. 358-59 ......
  • Table of cases, index and about the authors
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Seventh Edition
    • June 30, 2021
    ...335 R v Hundal, [1993] 1 SCR 867, 79 CCC (3d) 97................................................. 313 R v Hynes, [2001] 3 SCR 623, 2001 SCC 82, 206 DLR (4th) 483....................... 139 R v Jarvis, [2002] 3 SCR 757, 2002 SCC 73, 219 DLR (4th) 233...................61, 333 R v Jarvis, 201......
    • Get Started for Free