Contrary to what a recent Toronto Star opinion column would have you believe, my female colleagues are not hired by clients to “hide behind their skirts”.
They are hired because they are good at their job. Period. To suggest otherwise is offensive.
https://t.co/EsVHTmG6wV
After almost a decade of having the immense privilege of learning and working from the very lawyers I admired from a distance in law school - like Alan Gold and Frank Addario - I am thrilled to announce that I have started my own firm, Metcalfe Law.
Jurors at an upcoming murder trial in Hamilton get a pay bump after a recent decision highliting their second-rate treatment while making "life and death decisions" https://t.co/yqHJJmZDPF
Just because something is outside the knowledge of the ordinary person does not make it relevant. This evidence was, at most, "marginally" helpful.
Terrific outcome for @JoleneHansell and her client.
Expert evidence about the neurobiology of trauma and the encoding of traumatic memories should not have been admitted. Credibility and reliability assessments are the "daily fare" of trial judges. New trial ordered.
R. v. P.J.C. 2025 ONCA 196.
https://t.co/au56CeWC2B
@DrSChouinard I’m still not sure what leverage DJT wanted to get with the threat of tariffs. Feels like it was a “I can get you to do what I want” move with no lasting trust that the threats can be averted or positive feedback loop for Canada. Would love your take.
The "faint hope clause" allowed offenders sentenced to parole ineligibility periods greater than 15 years to apply for early parole at 15 years. The December 2, 2011 amendments repealed the clause. Offenders convicted prior to the amendments remain eligible.
R v Mariani, 2025 BCSC 129.
2011 repeal of "faint hope clause" for 1st degree murder is unconstitutional. Amounts to "cruel and unusual punishment", in breach of section 12 of the Charter.
https://t.co/aRY1nrU3ed
Court must still hear the parties' submissions on section 1. Tall task for the Crown: persuading the court that "cruel and unusual punishment" can "be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". This smells of an appeal to the SCC.
If the party meets their onus, court must weigh the various factors set out in 278.5(2) of the Code.
Here, post-charge incident reports involving the complainant presumptively irrelevant. Court doubts how they could support the lone ground of appeal: ineffective assistance.
R v D.V., 2025 ONCA 67.
Protections afforded to complainants in sexual offence prosecutions, and the objectives they serve, extend to applications for 3rd party production on appeal.
https://t.co/KqiIs4YlKP
Test expands R v Trotta. Appellant must show:
1. Reasonable possibility that request for production assists proposed fresh evidence motion;
2. A reasonable possibility that the records can be received as fresh evidence.
Failure to meet one's onus here dooms the application.
R v Dartiguenave, 2025 ONCA 2. Décision importante sur les droits linguistiques. La Cour d’Appel annule un verdict de non-responsabilité criminelle et ordonne un nouveau procès en raison d’atteintes aux droits de l’appelant prévus à l’ar. 530(3).
https://t.co/tzfkkT95MY
3. La Cour d’Appel décourage les juges de paix et les juges de première instance à informer un accusé que de procéder en français pourrait causer un délai. Le fardeau demeure avec le ministère public à être proactif en matière des services linguistiques.