Your search
Results 868 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
In Canada (A.G.) v. Bedford, the Supreme Court of Canada invalidated three prostitution-related provisions of the Criminal Code on grounds of overbreadth and gross disproportionality. The implications of Bedford go well beyond the particular context of sex work and even of criminal law. First, the Court held that the three constitutional norms against overbreadth, arbitrariness, and gross disproportionality are distinct from each other rather than aspects of a single norm against overbreadth. Second, the Court held that a Charter applicant could establish a violation of section 7 by showing that a law is overbroad, arbitrary, or grossly disproportionate in its impact on the life, liberty, or security of only one person and that the effectiveness of the law in achieving its policy objectives was not relevant to these norms. There are some difficulties in understanding this highly individualistic approach to section 7, and those difficulties lead to the third implication. By deferring any consideration of the effectiveness of the law to the question of whether it is a proportional limit on a section 7 right, the Court may be indicating a willingness to do something it has never done before: recognize an infringement of a section 7 right as a justified limit under section 1. The Court’s clarification of the relationship between the norms against overbreadth, arbitrariness, and gross disproportionality is welcome, but its individualistic articulation of those norms is difficult to understand and its suggestion that section 7 violations may now be easier to save under section 1 is troubling.
Explore
Resource type
Topics
- Criminal law (1)
- Equity (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Voyeurism (1)
Publication year
-
Between 1900 and 1999
(190)
-
Between 1910 and 1919
(1)
- 1918 (1)
- Between 1930 and 1939 (5)
- Between 1940 and 1949 (6)
- Between 1950 and 1959 (8)
- Between 1960 and 1969 (14)
- Between 1970 and 1979 (18)
- Between 1980 and 1989 (51)
- Between 1990 and 1999 (87)
-
Between 1910 and 1919
(1)
-
Between 2000 and 2026
(678)
- Between 2000 and 2009 (235)
- Between 2010 and 2019 (291)
- Between 2020 and 2026 (152)