Search

Copyright of Canadian Criminal Law Review is the property of Carswell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In Canada, privately fabricated firearms represent a growing phenomenon. With it come many legal challenges and novel concerns for the case law and legislation to address. One such challenge stems directly from the statutory definition of 'Ifirearm" in s. 2 of the Criminal Code. The case of R. v. Tarapaski, 2022 MBCA 74, involving the possession of an incomplete and improvised jirearm, illustrates it perjectly. While commenting on R. v. Tarapaski, this article provides an overview of the principles surrounding the definition oj ".firearm". It also offers a series of com;ments on the concept of ctdaptability in the context of privately fabricated firearms as well as on aspects of the expert opinion required to prove that such a.firearm falls under the Criminal Code's definition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In civil and criminal proceedings, there are factors inherent in the role of a treating physician such as advocacy and other duties owed the patient, in contrast to expert opinion provided by an independent assessor which is required to be objective. Misunderstanding or unawareness of the differences in treating versus expert physicians can lead to decision-makers relying on potentially biased information. Recent decisions in Canada have allowed for opinion evidence by treatment providers (Westerhoff v. Gee Estate), which seem to ignore the potential bias of the treatment provider. The lack of clarity by which decision-makers perceive the role of physician witnesses poses a significant issue for physicians, who must balance competing interests, equivocal processes and concerns regarding bias and conflict of interest when providing medical information to a decision-maker. This paper attempts to clarify the essential differences between information provided by a treating physician as opposed to an expert opinion provided by an independent consultant in Canada. Discussion around privacy legislation will be used to highlight some differences. It is hoped that a clearer understanding of the information the decision-makers are receiving will promote an improved understanding of that information and, subsequently, an improved decision-making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) can cause severe disease in infants and older adults. Various vaccine candidates are in development and may become authorized for use in Canada within the next 2-5 years. The Public Health Agency of Canada sought to enhance preparedness for RSV vaccine and passive immunization candidates by organizing an expert retreat to identify knowledge gaps in surveillance and research and development in the context of provincial and territorial RSV public health priorities. We determined that RSV candidate vaccines in development directly address four out of five identified public health priorities, and identified remaining data gaps around vaccine efficacy and effectiveness. We determined that limited or sufficient surveillance data is available to support decision-making for four out of five RSV public health priorities and identified data gaps for several key populations: (i) for RSV cases under 17 years of age, gaps remain for denominator data to calculate incidence and data on medically attended outpatient visits; (ii) for RSV cases in Indigenous and remote communities, gaps remain for data on incidence, prevalence, specific risk factors, feasibility and acceptability; and (iii) for RSV cases in older adults, gaps remain for data on incidence. This process demonstrated the feasibility of, and stakeholder support for, gap analyses in surveillance data to support decisions about prospective vaccines and immune products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this case note, the authors review a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in which the Court tightened the admissibility requirements of expert witnesses. The Supreme Court confirmed that expert witnesses owe a special duty of impartiality at common law to provide ‘fair, objective and non-partisan assistance’ to the trier of fact. On the question of admissibility, the Supreme Court adopted an approach broadly consistent with England by imposing a threshold eligibility requirement for the admission of expert evidence. An expert will be qualified to testify only if he or she is aware of and willing to carry out their duty of impartiality to the court. In addition, the trier of fact continues to act as a gatekeeper by assessing the probative value of the proposed expert's evidence and weighing it against the potential for prejudice. Only where the probative value exceeds the potential for prejudice will it be admitted. If the evidence of an expert witness is admitted, less serious concerns about the impartiality of the expert witness can inform the weight accorded to the evidence. The authors conclude that the Supreme Court's decision is a welcome development in Canadian law as it establishes a clear test designed to better safeguard the integrity of the trial process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the admissibility of the expert opinion evidence in the courts of Canada and mentions the dangers of expert opinions that a jury will be unable to make an effective and critical assessment of the evidence.

Traditional knowledge and oral traditions history are crucial lines of evidence in Aboriginal claims litigation and alternative forms of resolution, most notably claims commissions. This article explores the ways in which these lines of evidence pose numerous challenges in terms of how and where they can be presented, who is qualified to present it, questions about whether this evidence can stand on its own, and the problems of developing appropriate measures to protect it from inappropriate use by outsiders while not unduly restricting access by the traditional owners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a study that examined Canadian trial lawyers' understanding about the scientific evidence of the fallibility of eyewitness testimony. Topics discussed include the introduction of DNA evidence in the courtroom that revealed the science relating to the fallibility of eyewitness testimony, the need of reviewing the evidence gathered by the judicial system, and studies conducted in the area of eyewitness memory. It mentions the technique of cognitive interview.

The article focuses on models for increasing transparency in arson investigations. Topics include efforts to prevent rogue investigations, efforts to prevent wrongful convictions of arson, and the cross-examination of expert witnesses during the trial. Information is provided on arson for profit and Canadian civil fraud.

The article discusses several Canadian court judgments in cases involving various family law-related issues such as child custody, spousal support, and child support between 2012 an 2014, including many decisions by appellate courts in Canada. International custody disputes, the denial of parental access to a child upon the dissolution of a marriage, and the Ontario Court of Appeal are mentioned. Canada's Divorce Act, expert evidence, and the nation's Children’s Law Reform Act are examined.

The article offers information on the legal history of litigation regarding the protection of rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada. It discusses the role of legal historians such as Paul McHugh, Professor at the Cambridge University, England, in Indigenous rights cases including Parker v. British Airways Board, Milirrpum v. Nabalco Pty. Ltd., and Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. Canada (Attorney General). It discusses significance of historical documents and testimony by Indigenous witnesses.

The article discusses Canadian trial lawyers' understanding of scientific evidence concerning the potential fallibility of eyewitness testimony as of 2014, focusing on the use of DNA evidence in courtrooms, as well as information about the judicial processes in places such as Canada and the U.S. Police line-up procedures, estimator variables, and Canada's justice system are mentioned. Other topics include witness reliability, system variables, and the legal aspects of mug shots.

The article presents a proposed framework for the use of social science evidence as proof of legislative fact in constitutional law litigation in Canada. Topics include the use of expert evidence in judicial decision making, the importance of evidentiary reliability, and the admissibility of expert evidence during constitutional litigation.

The article discusses if there should be an exception to litigation privilege in cases involving the determination of constitutionality of a piece of legislation. Topics include the suppression of evidence during trial, the validity of law, and the production of expert evidence. Information is provided on the rules of evidence in Canada.

The article discusses social science research and design in relation to legal claims by persons with disabilities, the nation's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Contemplative, Hypotheses, Alternatives, Operationalize, and Sample (C.H.A.O.S.) analytic framework as of September 2013. Canadian courts and expert witness testimony are addressed, along with Canadian case law and constitutional litigation involving Canada's Attorney General. The Canadian Supreme Court is also mentioned.

Copyright of Canadian Bar Review is the property of Canadian Bar Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on the immunity of expert witnesses in Canada. Topics include the recovery of compensation in cases of an ineffective expert witness, witness immunity from civil suits, and the prohibition of retaliatory lawsuits against expert witnesses. Information is provided on the liability of an adverse expert witness.

Copyright of Canadian Bar Review is the property of Canadian Bar Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses the 2011 Ontario Superior Court of Justice case Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources which deals with Ojibway Indians who are members of the Grassy Narrows First Nation and their alleged treaty rights regarding the clear-cutting of forests, hunting, and fishing. Expert evidence was submitted regarding the Ojibways and their reliance on the written word. Canada's 1867 Constitution Act is also addressed.

The article discusses the significance of hot-tubbing. It provides information that hot-tubbing trial procedure is introduced in federal courts regarding expert testimony, and generated a strong criticism from intellectual property litigators in the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada. It presents three benefits of such trial procedure including restriction of experts from undermining truth seeking, scientifically understanding the complex matters issue, and improves judicial economy.

Copyright of Canadian Criminal Law Review is the property of Carswell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses a court case about rights to an Aboriginal commercial fishery where the Attorney General of Canada believed the explorer records should be admitted to evidence for the truth of their contents. The plaintiffs opposed this arguing that the documents should be admissible through expert witnesses and that only certain parts of the documents were admissible. Examples of explorer records are given. It was found that the documents are admissible through expert witnesses.

Abstract In R v Lavallee and R v Mohan, the Supreme Court of Canada established a test for the admissibility of expert evidence which is somewhat different from that used in other common law jurisdictions. Over the course of several more recent decisions, the court has expressed an increasingly sceptical attitude towards expert evidence of human behaviour. Collectively, these cases have left the state of Canadian law unclear. Canadian commentators also disagree about how best to navigate a path between the Scylla of uncritical reliance on expert evidence and the Charybdis of leaving discriminatory legal reasoning undisturbed. This article describes two proposals for reforming the Canadian approach to expert evidence and suggests that only one has the potential to move expert evidence jurisprudence beyond its current impasse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Following the wrongful conviction of a man for the sexual assault and murder of a child, the Province of Ontario commissioned a public inquiry to prevent future miscarriages of justice. The implementation of several recommendations regarding forensic laboratory procedure and the presentation of expert evidence has proven to be beneficial to the Canadian criminal justice system. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Discusses the role of expert testimony in medical ethics cases such as in the case Sawatzky v. Riverview Health Center which was tried in Canada. Factors which determine admissibility of expert testimony in Canada; Ethical and legal aspects of surrogate decision-making for sick people.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Criminology is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Discusses the role of historians who are employed as expert witnesses in Canada as of June 1986. Factors discouraging historians to participate as expert witnesses in litigation; Skills of historians considered as beneficial to the development of a lawsuit; Concerns of historians as expert witnesses.

What are the features of a good regulatory review process? In this paper we identify criteria for 'good process' drawn from a combined reading of the environmental justice and process literature. We then apply these criteria to a case study, assessing four versions of Canadian regulatory review: CEAA 1992, CEAA 2012, the 2017 Expert Panel report, and IAA 2019. We aim to make two contributions. First, we propose a set of 'good process' criteria that we hope can be widely applied, reflecting on complementarities and tensions that arise from combining two bodies of scholarship. Second, we identify areas where Canadian review processes have improved over time and those where significant work remains to be done. This work seeks to make a constructive intervention at a time when energy and industrial projects around the world face strong challenges in the legal, political and public domains. • 'Good process' criteria are drawn from process and environmental justice literature. • Four versions of Canadian impact assessment are assessed against the criteria. • Canada's 2019 Impact Assessment Act improves on CEAA 1992 and 2012. • Deliberation was an area of weakness across all four versions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses two court cases involving juveniles in Australia and Canada in 2005. Explanations for inconsistencies in the accounts given by a boy who charged a person with an offense of indecency in Australia; Decision of the court on the case; Details of the case of a teenage boy who stabbed his mother in the foot with a pen.

The article focuses on the case Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc. in Canada. In the ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada provided guidance on the test for confusion related to the Trade Marks Act and confirmed that Canada recognizes the priority of trademarks on the basis of first use rather than registration. Details related to the confusion analysis and the role of expert witnesses in trademark cases are offered. The implications of the ruling are discussed.

In this article the author discusses the use of a pathologist as an expert evidence in Canada which has a legal system based on the adversarial principle of reducing a case into a single simple question. He states that frustration may result from the preference of law for a simple answer and the belief of pathologists in complex multiple causes. The author notes that a vague concept of the total truth of a situation is sought by pathologists.

The article discusses the straddle evidence in a Canadian drink driving case, where the blood-alcohol concentration of the defendant obtained using a breathalyser was presumed to be his blood alcohol level during the time of arrest. The Canadian Supreme Court is not convinced that the evidence was capable of rebutting the statutory presumption because it showed that the range of possible blood-alcohol concentration continually varied depending on the rate the body absorbs alcohol. The judge concluded that evidence is not sufficient to raise doubt.

Reports on a surgeons' workshop in Ontario in which lawyer Paul Steep of the Toronto firm, McCarthy Tetrault, which is known for defending physicians on behalf of the Canadian Medical Protective Association, spoke on being an expert witness. The challenge of explaining standards and real limits in a courtroom; Medical injury and negligence; Cosponsor of the February 1999 forum. INSET: Mock trial brings surgeons face to face with defence lawyer's....