R. v. Menezes, 2019 ONSC 4497
| Judge | SCHRECK J. |
| Court | Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada) |
| Case Date | July 26, 2019 |
| Jurisdiction | Ontario |
| Citations | 2019 ONSC 4497 |
-
- 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
3 practice notes
-
R. v. Uthaya-Shangar,
...to justify the suspension of the s.10(b) right by proving whether there was reasonable opportunity to consult counsel. See R. v. Menezes, 2019 ONSC 4497 at paras. 23-26, per Schreck J. sitting as a Summary Conviction Appeal Court. [10] There are some factual differences between the parties ......
-
R. v. Kubacsek,
...is not met”: Quansah, supra at para. 49. While I agree with my colleague Schreck J.’s conclusion in R. v. Menezes, 2019 ONSC 4497 at paras. 23-36 that the Crown bears the burden of persuasion on this issue, I think that the evidence in this case is sufficiently clear that the ......
-
R. v. Mohammed,
...was no opportunity to consult counsel when assessing whether the ASD test was “forthwith” under s.254(2): R. v. Menezes, 2019 ONSC 4497 at paras. 23-26. An alternative view was expressed in Yamka, supra which was decided in 2011. In that case, the court held the onus res......
3 cases
-
R. v. Uthaya-Shangar,
...to justify the suspension of the s.10(b) right by proving whether there was reasonable opportunity to consult counsel. See R. v. Menezes, 2019 ONSC 4497 at paras. 23-26, per Schreck J. sitting as a Summary Conviction Appeal Court. [10] There are some factual differences between the parties ......
-
R. v. Kubacsek,
...is not met”: Quansah, supra at para. 49. While I agree with my colleague Schreck J.’s conclusion in R. v. Menezes, 2019 ONSC 4497 at paras. 23-36 that the Crown bears the burden of persuasion on this issue, I think that the evidence in this case is sufficiently clear that the ......
-
R. v. Mohammed,
...was no opportunity to consult counsel when assessing whether the ASD test was “forthwith” under s.254(2): R. v. Menezes, 2019 ONSC 4497 at paras. 23-26. An alternative view was expressed in Yamka, supra which was decided in 2011. In that case, the court held the onus res......