Law Commons^™

Private Search And Seizure: The Constitutionality Of Anton Piller Orders In Canada, Dimitros Valkanas

Dalhousie Law Journal

This paper examines the constitutionality of the Anton Piller order in Canadian law. First, the paper examines whether Anton Piller orders overall are unconstitutional through three major avenues of attack: (i) Charter challenges; (ii) the ultra vires doctrine; and (iii) the principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem. Afterwards, in the event that no challenge against Anton Piller orders broadly would succeed, the paper examines whether their uniquely Canadian variant known as a “rolling” or “John (or Jane) Doe” Anton Piller orders could be challenged, looking at both Charter and non-Charter challenges. Finally, this paper proposes the imposition of additional …

Deciding, ‘What Happened?’ When We Don’T Really Know: Finding Theoretical Grounding For Legitimate Judicial Fact-Finding, Nayha Acharya

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

The crucial question for many legal disputes is “what happened,”? and there is often no easy answer. Fact-finding is an uncertain endeavor and risk of inaccuracy is inevitable. As such, I ask, on what basis can we accept the legitimacy of judicial fact-findings. I conclude that acceptable factual determinations depend on adherence to a legitimate process of fact-finding. Adopting Jürgen Habermas’s insights, I offer a theoretical grounding for the acceptability of judicial fact-finding. The theory holds that legal processes must embody respect for legal subjects as equal and autonomous agents. This necessitates two procedural features. First, fact-finding processes must be …

Evidence, Rollie Thompson

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

“Evidence” is what, in our adversary system, the parties attempt to place before the neutral factfinder in order to prove their case (or disprove their opponent's case). We follow the principle of party-presentation: parties determine what specific items of evidence are offered for proof, while the impartial judge or decision maker will determine which items are “admissible” evidence, in accordance with principles of law. At the end of the trial or hearing, the fact-finder (jury, judge, tribunal, decision maker) will determine which of those admissible items of evidence are believed or not, in formulating “fact-guesses” or “findings of fact”.

Mr. Big And The New Common Law Confessions Rule: Five Years In Review, Adelina Iftene, Vanessa Kinnear

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision of R v Hart in July of 2014. The decision provided a two-prong framework for assessing the admissibility of confessions obtained through the undercover police tactic known as “Mr. Big”. The goal of the framework was to address reliability concerns, to protect suspects from state abuse, and to reduce the risk of wrongful convictions. The first prong of the test created a new common law evidentiary rule, under which Mr. Big obtained confessions are now presumptively inadmissible. The second prong revamped the existing abuse of process doctrine.

In this article, the authors …

Judicial Treatment Of Aboriginal Peoples’ Oral History Evidence: More Room For Reconciliation, Jimmy Peterson

Dalhousie Law Journal

Oral history is the only past record in many Aboriginal groups in Canada. In 1997, in Delgamuukw, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the strict approach to evidence law with respect to oral history had to be relaxed for Aboriginal peoples to be able to pursue claims to Aboriginal rights or Aboriginal title. This was a necessary element of the attempt to achieve reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples. Yet, while evidence law has become increasingly flexible when it comes to accommodating Aboriginal peoples, courts have struggled with how to value oral traditions. A review of the case …

The Virtue Of Process: Finding The Legitimacy Of Judicial Fact-Finding In Personal Injury Litigation, Nayha Acharya

PhD Dissertations

This thesis is an inquiry into the legitimacy of judicial fact-finding in civil litigation. Judges make authoritative factual findings in conditions of uncertainty and the decision-making process cannot, and does not, guarantee the accuracy of those outcomes. Given the inevitable risk of error, on what basis is the authority of judicial fact-finding legitimate? This project provides a framework of procedural legitimacy that bridges two unavoidable aspects of adjudication: factual indeterminacy and the need for justifiably authoritative dispute resolution. This work draws of the legal theories of Lon Fuller and Jurgen Habermas to substantiate the notion of procedural legitimacy in the …

Section 276 Misconstrued: The Failure To Properly Interpret And Apply Canada's Rape Shield Provisions, Elaine Craig

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Despite the vintage of Canada’s rape shield provisions (which in their current manifestation have been in force since 1992), some trial judges continue to misinterpret and/or misapply the Criminal Code provisions limiting the use of evidence of a sexual assault complainant’s other sexual activity. These errors seem to flow from a combination of factors including a general misunderstanding on the part of some trial judges as to what section 276 requires and a failure on the part of some trial judges to properly identify, and fully remove, problematic assumptions about sex and gender from their analytical approach to the use …

The Exclusion Of Improperly Obtained Evidence At The International Criminal Court: A Principled Approach To Interpreting Article 69(7) Of The Rome Statute, Michael Madden

LLM Theses

This thesis examines article 69(7) of the Rome Statute, which creates an exclusionary rule for improperly obtained evidence at the International Criminal Court (ICC). Ultimately, the thesis proposes how the ICC should interpret its exclusionary rule. The thesis discusses the theory underlying exclusionary rules, the evidence law and remedial law contexts within which exclusionary rules operate, and numerous comparative examples of exclusionary doctrine from within national criminal justice systems. Finally, some unique aspects of international criminal procedure are described in order to demonstrate how an international exclusionary rule might need to differ from a domestic rule, and previous jurisprudence relating …

Electronic Evidence In Canada, Robert Currie, Steve Coughlan

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

This chapter discusses the issues surrounding electronic evidence in Canada. Topics discussed include the best evidence rule, electronic signatures, web-based evidence, and video-tape and security camera evidence. In addition rules around protection of privacy, discovery, and confidentiality are pursued. Finally the chapter also considers the many issues which arise around gathering electronic evidence in the criminal context, including wiretaps, general warrants, and searches of computers and cell phones.

Pereira's Attack On Legalizing Euthanasia Or Assisted Suicide: Smoke And Mirrors, Jocelyn Downie, Kenneth Chambaere, Jan L. Bernheim

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

In a paper published in Current Oncology, University of Ottawa palliative care physician Jose Pereira states that the, “laws and safeguards [in countries in which euthanasia or assisted suicide have been legalized] are regularly ignored and transgressed in all the jurisdictions, and that transgressions are not prosecuted.” He purports to demonstrate that the safeguards and controls put in place in the permissive jurisdictions are an “illusion.”

In the present paper, we expose problems with the evidence base provided and relied upon by Pereira. It should be noted that we provide only examples of each of the categories of mistakes made …

Book Review: 'E-Discovery In Canada' By Todd J. Burke, Kelly Friedman, Andrew J. Mccreary, James Morton, Susan Nickle, Vincenzo Rondinelli, Glenn Smith, James Swanson & Susan Wortzman, Robert Currie

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

It is not hyperbolic to say that the proliferation of electronically stored information (ESI) is probably the most prominent change-harbinger and potential havoc-wreaker in civil litigation today — second only, perhaps, to the spiralling costs of litigation itself. Indeed, the practical and legal difficulties associated with the storage, gathering, preservation, disclosure and evidentiary use of ESI have the potential to act as a Trojan Horse, causing what would previously have been ordinary cases to implode under their weight. Increasing recognition of this is evident; electronic discovery (e-discovery) cases have begun to emerge in the reports, a successful co-operative effort by …

The Admissibility Of Electronic Business Records, Ken Chasse

Canadian Journal of Law and Technology

The business record provisions of the Evidence Acts determine a record’s admissibility by evidence of its history, which must be the product of “the usual and ordinary course of business” (or comparable “business activity” wording). The electronic record provisions determine a record’s admissibility by the, “integrity of the electronic records system in which it is recorded or stored.” The difference is, records management (RM) based on “paper records concepts” versus “electronic records systems concepts.” The former is subjective — each business determines its own “usual and ordinary course of business”; the latter, objective — in accor- dance with authoritative standards …