R v Kapustinsky, 2020 ABQB 611
| Judge | Honourable Mr. Justice N. Devlin |
| Citation | 2020 ABQB 611 |
| Docket Number | 181110446Q1 |
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada) |
| Date | 14 October 2020 |
-
- 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
8 practice notes
-
R. v. Comin,
...on twin-myth reasoning and the fallacy of broad advance consent. [61] In R. v. Kapustinsky, 2020 ABQB 611, Justice Devlin succinctly delineates the parameters of the threshold or first stage of the [21] The first stage ......
-
R. v. A.I.,
...321; R. v. D. (W.C.), 2021 NSSC 37; R. v. J.E., 2019 NLSC 134; R. v. PO, 2020 ABQB 647; R. v. S.W., 2020 NSSC 320; R. v. Kapustinsky, 2020 ABQB 611; R. v. J.D.N., 2019 SKQB 92; R. v. Williams, 2019 NSSC 399; R. v. D.A.B., 2021 MBQB 6; R. v. J.W., 2009 ABQB 332; and R. v. Brown, 2019 NSSC [3......
-
Rennalls v Tettey,
...complainants were not being accorded full and equal protection of the law at any stage in the criminal justice system: R v Kapustinsky, 2020 ABQB 611 at para 27. For example, L'Heureux-Dubé J observed in R v Osolin, 1993 CanLII 54 (SCC), [1993] 4 SCR 595 at One of the most powerful disincen......
-
R v. D. (K.),
...whether the Applicant “can articulate the mechanism of relevance to which those specific facts relate”: R. v. Kaputinsky, 2020 ABQB 611, 477 C.R.R. (2d) 173, at para. 23. Detailed weighing of probative value versus prejudice and in-depth assessment of relevance are to be......
Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
-
R. v. Comin,
...on twin-myth reasoning and the fallacy of broad advance consent. [61] In R. v. Kapustinsky, 2020 ABQB 611, Justice Devlin succinctly delineates the parameters of the threshold or first stage of the [21] The first stage ......
-
R. v. A.I.,
...321; R. v. D. (W.C.), 2021 NSSC 37; R. v. J.E., 2019 NLSC 134; R. v. PO, 2020 ABQB 647; R. v. S.W., 2020 NSSC 320; R. v. Kapustinsky, 2020 ABQB 611; R. v. J.D.N., 2019 SKQB 92; R. v. Williams, 2019 NSSC 399; R. v. D.A.B., 2021 MBQB 6; R. v. J.W., 2009 ABQB 332; and R. v. Brown, 2019 NSSC [3......
-
Rennalls v Tettey,
...complainants were not being accorded full and equal protection of the law at any stage in the criminal justice system: R v Kapustinsky, 2020 ABQB 611 at para 27. For example, L'Heureux-Dubé J observed in R v Osolin, 1993 CanLII 54 (SCC), [1993] 4 SCR 595 at One of the most powerful disincen......
-
R v. D. (K.),
...whether the Applicant “can articulate the mechanism of relevance to which those specific facts relate”: R. v. Kaputinsky, 2020 ABQB 611, 477 C.R.R. (2d) 173, at para. 23. Detailed weighing of probative value versus prejudice and in-depth assessment of relevance are to be......
Request a trial to view additional results