In some criminal cases, a self-represented accused person may not be permitted to personally cross-examine a witness. Instead, the court may appoint counsel for that limited purpose.

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

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.’

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.