The 2020 Annotated Tremeear's Criminal Code - Student Edition
ISBN/ISSN/Product Number: 978-0-7798-9047-7
Product Type: Book
Number of Pages: Approximately 2960 pages
Number of Volumes: 1 volume bound
Binding: softcover
Publication Date: 2019-08-12
Publisher: Carswell
Price: $97.00

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.


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:

Legislation that received Royal Assent June 21, 2019:

  • An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts, S.C. 2019, c. 25 (former Bill C-75) – also amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Identification of Criminals Act:
  • An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, S.C. 2019, c. 9 (former Bill C-71) – amends the Firearms Act, the Criminal Code and related regulations
  • An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins), S.C. 2019, c. 11 (former Bill S-203)
  • An Act respecting national security matters, S.C. 2019, c. 13 (former Bill C-59) – amends the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Youth Criminal Justice Act 
  • An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2019, c. 15 (former Bill C-77) – amends the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act
  • An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting), S.C. 2019, c. 17 (former Bill C-84)
  • Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, S.C. 2019, c. 29 (former Bill C-97) – amends the Criminal Code


  • 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. Penunsi, 2019 SCC

R v. Calnen, 2019 SCC

R v. Goldfinch, 2019 SCC

R v. Barton, 2019 SCC

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. 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.

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 has been a judge of the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario since 2002. She presides primarily over criminal law cases. Prior to her appointment as a judge, she was a partner with the Toronto firm of Gold & Fuerst, exclusively practising criminal and quasi-criminal litigation. She is a co-author of The Annotated Tremeear’s Criminal Code, a former co-Chair of the Federation of Law Societies’ National Criminal Law Program, and a former part-time instructor at Osgoode Hall Law School.