Bail & Trial Process

Question 1

R. v. Morales

Answer 1

Bail (Public Interest): Denying bail for vague “public interest” is unconstitutional. Created the specific “Tertiary Ground” (confidence in admin of justice).

Question 2

R. v. St. Cloud

Answer 2

Tertiary Ground: Detention to maintain confidence in justice is not limited to “rare” cases; considers what a reasonable member of the public would expect.

Question 3

R. v. Antic

Answer 3

Ladder Principle: Codified in s. 515(3). Judge must impose the least onerous form of release (cash bail is a last resort).

Question 4

R. v. Hall

Answer 4

Bail (Just Cause): Denial of bail for “any other just cause” is valid, but cannot be based on irrational public outcry.

Question 5

R. v. Stinchcombe

Answer 5

Disclosure: Crown has a duty to disclose all relevant information (fruit of the investigation) to the defence, regardless of whether they intend to use it.

Question 6

Boucher v. The Queen

Answer 6

Crown Duty: Crown’s role is not to win at all costs, but to present credible evidence and ensure justice is done.

Question 7

R. v. Anderson

Answer 7

Crown Discretion: Decision to seek a mandatory minimum sentence is a matter of prosecutorial discretion, reviewable only for abuse of process. Crown prosecutors are not constitutionally required to consider the Aboriginal status of an accused when deciding whether or not to seek a mandatory minimum sentence.

Question 8

R. v. Kokopenace

Answer 8

Jury Representation: State must make “reasonable efforts” to compile a representative jury roll. Accused is not entitled to a proportionally representative result.

Question 9

R. v. Parks

Answer 9

Challenge for Cause: Jurors can be challenged for cause regarding anti-Black racism because it is a realistic potential for partiality.

Question 10

R. v. Williams

Answer 10

Indigenous Jurors: Extended Parks. In cases involving an Indigenous accused, potential jurors can be challenged for cause regarding racial bias.

Question 11

R. v. Lifchus

Answer 11

Reasonable Doubt: Trial judges must explain “reasonable doubt” to the jury. It is not an ordinary concept; it is logically connected to the evidence and higher than “probably guilty” but lower than “absolute certainty”.

Question 12

R. v. Starr

Answer 12

Jury Instruction: Reaffirmed Lifchus. It is a reversible error for a judge to tell a jury that “reasonable doubt” has no special meaning or is just an “everyday” standard.

Question 13

R. v. Chouhan

Answer 13

Peremptory Challenges: The 2019 abolition of peremptory challenges (allowing lawyers to reject jurors without reason) is constitutional. It does not violate the right to a fair trial.

Question 14

R. v. Turpin

Answer 14

Non-Jury Trial: There is no constitutional right to a trial by judge alone. The accused can only waive a jury trial with the Crown’s consent (s. 473).

Question 15

R. v. Pearson

Answer 15

• Rule: Placing the burden on the accused to justify bail for serious crimes (drugs, murder) violates s. 11(e) but is JUSTIFIED under s. 1.
• Reasoning: It is a unique, narrowly tailored measure to prevent absconding and re-offending in specific high-risk contexts.