Your search
Results 444 resources
-
This paper presents & discusses the Advisory Council's recommendations responding to a federal Department of Justice consultation paper on issues related to voyeurism and related legislation. Part 1 covers issues related to criminal voyeurism as an offence: how the offence should be defined, and the distribution of voyeuristic material. Parts 2 & 3 discuss issues related to defences for criminal voyeurism & distribution offences and the penalties for such offences in legislation. The conclusion includes additional recommendations regarding the need for research and other issues.
-
Canadian Libel and Slander Actions is a comprehensive, step-by-step guide to litigating a libel or slander action from the initial meeting with the client to the jury charge. It surveys more than 500 leading cases in Canada and elsewhere, providing expert insight into judicial interpretation of concepts such as express malice, fair comment, qualified and absolute privilege, justification and consent. It includes separate chapters on pleadings, discovery, evidence, damages, appeals, and Charter issues. The book is written by two of Canada's most experienced and respected practitioners of defamation and media-related law. It is destined to be a classic in the field.
-
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.
Explore
Resource type
- Book (123)
- Book Section (31)
- Case (2)
- Conference Paper (1)
- Dictionary Entry (17)
- Document (1)
- Journal Article (266)
- Preprint (1)
- Report (2)
Topics
- Copyright (2)
- Infringement (2)