911 calls are often some of the most powerful pieces of evidence in a criminal case. They can capture events in real time, including a caller’s tone, emotions, and immediate reaction to an incident. But just because a 911 call exists does not mean it can automatically be used in court.

In some criminal cases, the consequences go beyond fines or imprisonment. The court may also order the forfeiture of property connected to an offence.

Being charged with obstructing a police officer is more complex than many people realize. The offence is not simply about refusing to cooperate—it depends on whether a person actually interfered with an officer carrying out a lawful duty.

Media attention often surrounds criminal cases, particularly those involving emotionally charged allegations such as animal abuse. While public scrutiny can be intense, its legal impact on sentencing is more limited than many people assume.

In a criminal trial, decisions are supposed to be based on evidence presented in court. However, there are limited situations where a judge can rely on facts that were not formally proven. This is known as judicial notice. Judicial notice allows a judge to accept certain facts without requiring evidence, but only in narrow circumstances. These are facts that are either widely known or can be easily verified using reliable sources. Problems arise when a judge goes beyond these

In criminal trials, hearsay evidence is generally not allowed. This means that statements made outside of court cannot usually be used to prove the truth of what was said. However, there are important exceptions—and one of the most significant is the “state of mind” exception. This exception allows certain out-of-court statements to be admitted where they reflect a person’s thoughts, intentions, emotions, or beliefs at the time they were made. In the right circumstances, thos

The general rule is that related charges and co-accused are tried together. This promotes efficiency and helps avoid inconsistent verdicts. However, this is not always fair to the accused.

In some criminal cases in Ontario, the Crown may seek to take your property through a process called forfeiture. While this typically requires proof that the property is linked to a specific offence, there are situations where the burden shifts to you.

Digital processes are now a central part of criminal law practice in Ontario. Courts across the province accept electronic signatures, require electronic filing, and permit electronic service in many situations.

Courts often apply what is known as ‘enhanced credit’ for time spent in pre-trial custody. In many cases, this means you may receive more than one day of credit for each day spent in detention, recognizing the harsher realities of remand facilities.

A fair trial is a fundamental right in Canada. Central to that right is the expectation that judges will remain impartial throughout the proceedings. In some cases, concerns arise about whether a judge’s conduct creates a ‘reasonable apprehension of bias.’

Some materials - such as court orders, pleadings, and documents filed in open court - are public. These can generally be obtained without a warrant because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Criminal Code creates different offences depending on the age of the child and the relationship between the accused and the child. These range from abduction by a stranger to situations involving parents or guardians.

Charges for accessing child pornography are among the most serious offences in Canadian criminal law. However, the legal definition of ‘accessing’ is more specific than many people assume.

In Canadian criminal law, courts have the power to stop a prosecution where continuing would be fundamentally unfair. This is known as an ‘abuse of process’. The Supreme Court of Canada has set out a three-part framework for determining whether abuse of process exists.

Failing to attend court is a serious issue, but not every missed appearance amounts to ‘absconding’ under the law. In criminal cases, an accused is considered to have absconded when they deliberately avoid court proceedings in order to frustrate the process or avoid the consequences.

In Canada, leaving a child unattended can, in some circumstances, lead to criminal charges. One of the key offences is ‘abandoning a child’ under the Criminal Code.

The Crown may only seek to re-open its case after it has closed its evidence and before a verdict is rendered.

For many indictable offences, accused persons may re-elect their mode of trial, sometimes as of right and sometimes with prosecutorial consent. These decisions must comply with strict Criminal Code timelines and formalities.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments moved quickly to prohibit price gouging of necessary goods. These offences, while regulatory in nature, carry serious consequences and require careful legal analysis from defence counsel.