News: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "\'\'R v ([^\']+)\'\',[\s]*\[http:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/([a-zA-Z0-9]+) ([0-9]{4} [A-Z]+ [0-9]+)\] \(CanLII\)([^\{]+)\{" to "{{CanLIIRP|$1|$2|$3 (CanLII)|$4}}{" |
m Text replacement - "\'\'R v ([^\']+)\'\',[\s]*\[http:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/([a-zA-Z0-9]+) ([0-9]{4} [^\s]+ [0-9]+)\][\s]*\(([^\)]+)\),[\s]*([^\{]+)\{" to "{{CanLIIRP|$1|$2|$3 ($4)|$5}}{" Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
<div style="font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;"> April 15, 2016 </div> | <div style="font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;"> April 15, 2016 </div> | ||
The Supreme Court releases | The Supreme Court releases {{CanLIIRP|Lloyd|gpg9t|2016 SCC 13 (CanLII)| which rules that some mandatory minimum penalties for drug trafficking under s. 5(3) of the CDSA are unconstitutional. ''R v Safarzadeh-Markhali'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gpg9w 2016 SCC 14] (CanLII) is also released, which rules that s. 719(3.1) restricting enhanced credit for pre-trial custody is unconstitutional. | ||
<div style="font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;"> April 3, 2016 </div> | <div style="font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;"> April 3, 2016 </div> | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
<!--- Header for each article ---> | <!--- Header for each article ---> | ||
<div style="font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;"> April 11, 2014 </div> | <div style="font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;"> April 11, 2014 </div> | ||
The trilogy of cases of }}}}{{CanLIIR|Clarke|g6h8s|2014 SCC 28 (CanLII)}}, ''R v Carvery'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g6h8q 2014 SCC 27] (CanLII), and ''R v Summers'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g6h8n 2014 SCC 26] (CanLII) are released by the Supreme Court of Canada, affirming that the loss of remission in remand will justify 1.5:1 credit at sentencing. | The trilogy of cases of }}}}}}{{CanLIIR|Clarke|g6h8s|2014 SCC 28 (CanLII)}}, ''R v Carvery'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g6h8q 2014 SCC 27] (CanLII), and ''R v Summers'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g6h8n 2014 SCC 26] (CanLII) are released by the Supreme Court of Canada, affirming that the loss of remission in remand will justify 1.5:1 credit at sentencing. | ||
<!--- Header for each article ---> | <!--- Header for each article ---> | ||
Revision as of 12:37, 2 March 2021
Older Updates
Bill C-46 on "Conveyances" affecting Criminal Code offences relating to driving, including drug impairment, has now come into force.
The Supreme Court of Canada in R v Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58 (CanLII), per Martin J, finds mandatory imposition of victim fine surcharges on persons convicted of crime was found invalid as "cruel and unusual" punishment.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act has come into force. It removes and modifies numerous provisions of the Code, including unconstitutional provisions, sexual assault provisions, and some rules of evidence.
The "Discussion" tabs for each article can now be editted anonymously. Any constructive feedback on articles would be appreciated.
Bills C-45 and C-46 are given royal assent relating to marijuana decriminalization and new offences relating to drug impaired driving. Most provisions will not come into force until October and December 2018.
Happy 2018, everyone! Thanks too to those who have provided feedback and support.
Supreme Court of Canada releases R v Marakah, 2017 SCC 59 (CanLII)R v Clarke, 2014 SCC 28 (CanLII), R v Carvery, 2014 SCC 27 (CanLII), and R v Summers, 2014 SCC 26 (CanLII) are released by the Supreme Court of Canada, affirming that the loss of remission in remand will justify 1.5:1 credit at sentencing.
The SCC releases the decision of Bedford v Canada, 2013 SCC 72 (CanLII) striking down ss. 213(1)(c), 212(1)(j), and 210 of the Criminal Code.
The Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act comes into force requiring victim fine surcharges for all convictions. The fines would be 30% of any fine order, or at least $100 or $200 depending on election.
The Citizen's Arrest and Self-Defence Act comes into force. This re-writes the self-defence provisions under s. 34 to 42 as well as the citizen's arrest provision under s. 494.
A divided Supreme Court in R v TELUS Communications Co., 2013 SCC 16 (CanLII), [2013] 2 SCR 3 finds that an anticipatory search warrant to seize prospective text messages stored by a service provider amounts to a Part VI wiretap.
The remaining parts of the Safe Streets and Communities Act comes into force, most notably the removal of a number of offences from eligibility for a conditional sentence.
The Safe Streets and Communities Act provisions regarding penalties for sexual offences against children come into force.