The 2018 Annotated Tremeear's Criminal Code - Student Edition
ISBN/ISSN/Product Number: 978-0-7798-7927-4
Product Type: Book
Number of Pages: Approximately 2860 pages
Number of Volumes: 1 volume bound
Binding: softcover
Publication Date: 2017-08-14
Publisher: Carswell
Price: $88.00

Can We Help?

If you need assistance, please call us at

  • (416) 609-3800 (Toronto & international)
  • 1-800-387-5164 (toll free Canada & US)

We will be glad to assist you.

Description

Authoritative commentary, case summaries of appellate court decisions, and cross-references to related provisions help you understand how the parts of the Criminal Code interact

Get quick access to the important cases – so you can present your arguments with confidence. Authoritative commentary, case summaries of appellate court decisions, and cross-references to related provisions help you understand how the parts of the Criminal Code interact.

 

Throughout its history, defence, Crown and the judiciary have all come to trust and rely upon the indispensable annotations and commentary by the Tremeear's authors in this acclaimed courtroom resource.


Comprehensive

  • Features thousands of Supreme Court of Canada and provincial appellate Court decisions
  • Cross-references the appropriate specimen jury instructions (Watt's Manual of Criminal Jury Instructions)
  • Includes Offence tables that allow you to classify an offence, determine maximum and minimum sentences and the range of sentencing options and orders, forms of charges, and table of concordance

New in this edition

The 2018 edition of The Annotated Tremeear’s Criminal Code:

Features all of the latest legislative amendments, including those stemming from An 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 includes the following changes to the Criminal Code:

  • The introduction of exemptions to Criminal Code offences in order to allow medical and nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and other persons to provide assisted death;
  • The articulation of criteria and safeguards before medical assistance in dying could be administered;
  • The establishment of requirements for those involved in providing such assistance to furnish information in order to permit monitoring of this process; and
  • The creation of 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.

As well, the Schedules to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act have undergone amendment introduced by the following:   SOR/2017-44, SOR/2017-13, SOR/2016-295, SOR/2016-107, and SOR/2016-73.

Incorporates such key cases as:

SCC Cases

  • R. v. W. (D.L.), 2016 SCC – Parliament’s use of a term having a legal meaning reflects an intention for that meaning to apply, absent a clear indication to the contrary.
  • R. v. Cawthorne, 2016 SCC – Claims of improper prosecutorial conduct, including partisan-motivated behaviour, are to be brought and assessed under the doctrine of abuse of process.
  • R. v. Knapczyk, 2016 SCC – The accused may be found guilty of aiding or abetting an offence by conduct that prevents or hinders the principals’ accomplishment of a criminal act.
  • R. v. J. (K.R.), 2016 SCC – The prohibitions in s. 161 against contact with persons under the age of sixteen and the use of digital networks constitute “punishment” under s. 11(i) of the Charter.
  • World Bank Group v. Wallace, 2016 SCC – In assessing a subfacial challenge, affiants cannot ignore signs that other officers may be misleading them or omitting material information – absent an indication that something is amiss, however, affiants are not required to conduct their own investigation.
  • R. v. Awer, 2017 SCC – Subjecting the evidence of the defence’s experts to materially different levels of scrutiny than that of the Crown’s experts, absent any reason to do so, effectively shifts the burden of proof to the accused.
  • R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC – Where a sentencing judge has concerns about the appropriateness of a joint submission, the judge should provide clear and cogent reasons for imposing a sentence that departs from it.

Court of Appeal Cases

  • R. v. Dupe, 2016 ONCA – The position of the defence is part of the context in which the “air of reality” test is applied to the totality of the evidence adduced at trial.
  • R. v. Derbyshire, 2016 NSCA – The doctrine of abuse of process may apply to police misconduct in “Mr. Big” operations, but should not be limited to that context.
  • R. v. Wiens, 2016 BCCA – The Crown may lead evidence of the victim’s peaceful disposition when such evidence would be relevant to the issue of whether the accused had acted in self-defence, provided its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect – admissibility does not hinge on the accused having attacked the victim’s character.
  • R. v. Chapman, 2016 ONCA – Under s. 150.1(4), the accused is not required to have made every possible inquiry to ascertain the victim’s age – the accused need only to have taken all reasonable steps in order to invoke the mistake of age defence successfully.
  • R. v. C. (D.), 2016 MBCA – Concurrent sentences are rarely appropriate in cases involving separate victims of sexual abuse, each of whom has suffered an individual harm.
  • R. v. Parsley, 2016 NLCA – Where a confidential informant is a person of known identity and proven reliability, the need for independent corroboration, in whole or in part, of that CI’s information diminishes – there is no legal requirement for such corroboration.
  • R. v. Briltz, 2016 SKCA – In s. 249.1(1), the term “pursued” means “following with intent to overtake” – active following is not synonymous with pursuit.
  • R. v. Suter, 2016 ABCA – The sentencing range for the refusal offence after causing an accident leading to death is the same as that for impaired operation causing death – a finding that the accused was not impaired may be treated as a mitigating factor for the refusal offence.
About the Author
The Honourable Mr. Justice David Watt is a Judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. He was a Judge for the Superior Court of Justice for 22 years and was Crown Counsel in Ontario for 13 years, including eight years as Senior Crown Counsel (Criminal Law), Ministry of the Attorney General. Mr. Justice Watt is a well-known lecturer and has taught criminal law, evidence and procedure to law students, practitioners and judges at several Canadian law schools and in Continuing Legal Education programs across Canada for over 30 years. He is the Honourary Chair of the National Criminal Law Program.
The Honourable Madam Justice Michelle Fuerst is the Regional Senior Judge of the Central East Region of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Prior to her appointment as a Superior Court Judge in 2002, she was with the Toronto firm of Gold & Fuerst practising exclusively in criminal and quasi-criminal litigation. She has appeared in both the trial and appellate courts as well as before various administrative tribunals. She was an instructor for the Ontario Bar Admission Course in Criminal Procedure and formerly a part-time instructor with Osgoode Hall Law School. She is co-Chair of the Federation of Law Societies' annual National Criminal Law Program, Senior Chair of the Canadian Bar Association's Judges' Forum, a Director of the Ontario Superior court Judges' Association, a member of the Education Committee for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and a past President of both the Canadian Bar Association – Ontario and the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario).
CPD