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.
The Annotated Tremeear’s Criminal Code:
- 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 2020 Edition of The Annotated Tremeear’s Criminal Code:
Features all of the latest legislative amendments, including those introduced by the following:
- Cannabis Act, S.C. 2018, c. 16 (former Bill C-45)
- An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) […], S.C. 2018, c. 21 (former Bill C-46)
- Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act, S.C. 2018, c. 11 (former Bill C-66)
- An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act […], S.C. 2018, c. 29 (former Bill C-51)
Incorporates such key cases as:
Supreme Court of Canada Cases
R. v. Comeau, 2018 SCC – The SCC stressed and explained the narrowness of the exception whereby a lower court may challenge a precedent set by higher courts.
R. v. Carson, 2018 SCC – According to the SCC, the purpose of para. 121(1)(d) is to preserve the appearance of government integrity by criminalizing agreements between parties that pretend to have influence with the government.
R. v. Magoon, 2018 SCC – The SCC held the legal standard for proof of unlawful confinement to be same for children as for adults, but cautioned that courts must be mindful that children are inherently vulnerable and dependent.
R. v. Seipp, 2018 SCC – In the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the accused had left the scene of an accident without providing his name or address is sufficient to find the requisite fault element of the offence.
R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC – According to the SCC, mistake of law could be a mitigating factor on sentence, provided the accused proves an honest but mistaken belief in the legality of his or her actions, vis-à-vis mere confusion or uncertainty about lawfulness
R. v. Gubbins, 2018 SCC – Breathalyzer maintenance records are subject to the rules of disclosure relating to third party records – the accused must show the records are likely relevant.
R. v. Wong, 2018 SCC – Where the accused seeks to set aside a plea of guilty, on the basis that he or she was unaware of legally relevant consequences at that time, the accused must establish his or her own subjective prejudice.
Groia v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC – The SCC held resolute advocacy to be a principle of fundamental justice, requiring lawyers to raise fearlessly every issue, to advance every argument, and to ask every question that might help the client’s case.
Court of Appeal Cases
R. v. Degraw, 2018 ONCA – To establish constructive possession, the Crown need only prove the accused knowingly had a thing in a place for his or her own use or benefit.
R. v. Thompson, 2018 NSCA – Psychological harm caused by the accused’s non-disclosure of his HIV status does not vitiate consent to sexual activity – the complainant must also establish that he or she would not have consented if he or she had the relevant knowledge.
R. v. Burgar, 2018 BCCA – To determine whether a mistrial should be declared, a judge must consider whether such a declaration would be necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice in light of case-specific circumstances of the case.
LeBreton v. R., 2018 NBCA – The appellate court articulates a four-part procedure for settling disputes concerning aggravating factors in sentencing proceedings.
R. v. Penunsi, 2018 NLCA – A judge cannot compel the appearance of a person who is the subject of a s. 810.2 information by issuing a warrant of arrest.
R. v. Forcillo, 2018 ONCA – The Court of Appeal for Ontario held the minimum punishment provisions of ss. 239(a)(i) and (a.1) not to have offended s. 7 on the basis of overbreadth.