Fully annotated by three of Canada's most respected criminal law experts, Martin's Annual Criminal Code, Student Edition continues to deliver the excellent value with the highest quality content. Martin's references thousands of reported and unreported cases in a practical and accessible format.
Valuable features of Martin's Annual Criminal Code, Student Edition include:
- All Acts fully annotated with an extensive body of case law
- Practical and easy-to-use format regularly referred to in court
- Forms of charges for the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as well as a quick-reference offence grid
- Concordance with recent amendments
New in this edition
Case law Highlights
- R. v. Bingley (2017 SCC) – Since subs. 254(3.1) does not provide for the automatic admissibility at trial of DRE opinion evidence, the common law rules set out in R. v. Mohan apply.
- R. v. Paterson (2017 SCC) – The rationale for an accused’s confession rule does not apply to statements tendered in the context of a voir dire aimed at assessing the constitutionality of state action in light of the Charter.
- R. v. Oland (2017 SCC) – The public interest criterion of para. 679(3)(c) consists of two components: public safety and public confidence in the administration of justice. The assessment of public confidence involves weighing the two competing interests of enforceability and reviewability, underlying which the court would examine the seriousness of the offence and the apparent strength of the grounds to appeal, respectively.
- R. v. Ascencio-Chavez (2016 BCCA) – Although the threshold for identifying someone as a “known person” under subs. 185(1) is not an onerous one, a bare suspicion would not be sufficient without more.
- R. v. Manasseri (2017 ONCA) – Where concurrent jurisdiction exists, all relevant factors such as geographic locations of the applicant, sureties and counsel, the anticipated length of the hearing, and the need for familiarity with the appellate record, should be considered in order to determine the most appropriate forum for and hearing and determining an application.
- R. v. Douglas (2016 MBCA) – The accused’s right to appeal pursuant to subs. 784(1) from a decision granting or refusing prerogative relief is not limited by ss. 674 and 675, and thereby may apply to appeals of interlocutory matters.
Features all of the latest legislative amendments including those stemming from the Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), S.C. 2016, c. 3 (former bill C.14), which:
- introduced exemptions to Criminal Code offences in order to allow medical and nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and other persons to provide assisted death;
- articulated criteria and safeguards before medical assistance in dying could be administered;
- established requirements for those involved in providing such assistance to furnish information in order to permit monitoring of this process; and
- created new offences for failing to respect the criteria or safeguards; for forging or destroying documents related to medical assistance in dying; for failing to provide information required to monitor this process; and for contravening regulations made by the Minister of Health.
The Schedules to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act were amended by the following: