R. v. R.G.S.

JurisdictionBritish Columbia
JudgeBennett,Frankel,Horsman
Citation2023 BCCA 52
Docket NumberCA47532
CourtCourt of Appeal (British Columbia)
Date07 February 2023

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
3 practice notes
  • Yukon (Government of) v Norcope Enterprises Ltd
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory)
    • May 21, 2024
    ...at para. 153. 121 It is also the case that a judge's gatekeeping function requires an exercise of judicial discretion: see R. v. R.G.S., 2023 BCCA 52 at para. 53; R. v. Abbey, 2009 ONCA 624 at para. 122 The gatekeeping step requires the balancing of potential risks and benefits of admitting......
  • 2024 BCSC 1445
    • Canada
    • January 1, 2024
    ...Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Schneider, 2022 SCC 34 [ Schneider]. That analysis was discussed by the Court of Appeal in R. v. R.G.S., 2023 BCCA 52 [ R.G.S.]. Portions of that discussion are as follows: [24] The Supreme Court recently addressed the framework for the admissibility of evid......
  • R v Monteith
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • August 9, 2024
    ...Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Schneider, 2022 SCC 34 [ Schneider]. That analysis was discussed by the Court of Appeal in R. v. R.G.S., 2023 BCCA 52 [ R.G.S.]. Portions of that discussion are as follows: [24] The Supreme Court recently addressed the framework for the admissibility of evid......
3 cases
  • Yukon (Government of) v Norcope Enterprises Ltd
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory)
    • May 21, 2024
    ...at para. 153. 121 It is also the case that a judge's gatekeeping function requires an exercise of judicial discretion: see R. v. R.G.S., 2023 BCCA 52 at para. 53; R. v. Abbey, 2009 ONCA 624 at para. 122 The gatekeeping step requires the balancing of potential risks and benefits of admitting......
  • 2024 BCSC 1445
    • Canada
    • January 1, 2024
    ...Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Schneider, 2022 SCC 34 [ Schneider]. That analysis was discussed by the Court of Appeal in R. v. R.G.S., 2023 BCCA 52 [ R.G.S.]. Portions of that discussion are as follows: [24] The Supreme Court recently addressed the framework for the admissibility of evid......
  • R v Monteith
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • August 9, 2024
    ...Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Schneider, 2022 SCC 34 [ Schneider]. That analysis was discussed by the Court of Appeal in R. v. R.G.S., 2023 BCCA 52 [ R.G.S.]. Portions of that discussion are as follows: [24] The Supreme Court recently addressed the framework for the admissibility of evid......