Your search
Results 20 resources
-
Ever since the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R. v. Corbett, the question of whether an accused's prior criminal convictions can be raised against him in cross-examination has depended heavily upon whether those convictions constitute "crimes of dishonesty", and whether defence counsel has attacked the credibility of a Crown witness. The conventional wisdom is that crimes of dishonesty are the most probative prior convictions and extremely useful in measuring a person's credibility on the witness stand. Consequently, they are almost always admissible. In the same vein, contesting the credibility of a Crown witness is also viewed as a touchstone of admissibility. Both propositions have been repeated often enough to have achieved untouchable status. In this article the author challenges this position, suggesting that a second look at both conclusions is warranted. While some crimes falling under the designation undoubtedly deserve to be regarded as probative, the dishonesty factor often acts as little more than a stamp of convenience for the judiciary, and incorrectly permits the admission of prior convictions in situations where exclusion is warranted. Although better grounded in principle, the "credibility contest" designation suffers from similar shortcomings, as it is overutilized and often misunderstood, leading to the risk of real prejudice to the accused. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
The law of abstract payment undertakings fashions a rule that the undertakings are, as their name implies, independent of the transactions out of which they arise. That independence principle admits of an important exception if the beneficiary of the undertaking fraudulently seeks payment when he has no colourable right to payment. The parameters of the fraud exception to the abstraction principle are of necessity imprecise. Although courts have developed a number of limits to the exception, some courts, unaware perhaps of the danger they pose to the commercial efficacy of these undertakings, sometimes engage in wide-ranging fraud inquiry. This article contends that courts must limit the inquiry. The article illustrates the problem with analysis of three cases, one each from Australia, Canada and the United States. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Bruce A MacFarlane, 2006 31-3 Manitoba Law Journal 403, 2006 CanLIIDocs 132
-
Lee Stuesser, 2006 31-3 Manitoba Law Journal 543, 2006 CanLIIDocs 135
-
Graham Zellick, 2006 31-3 Manitoba Law Journal 555, 2006 CanLIIDocs 136
Explore
Resource type
- Book (7)
- Journal Article (13)