The Robichaud Report

In this episode, criminal defence lawyer Sean Robichaud explains the rights Canadians have during police questioning. Using practical examples, he discusses common mistakes made by suspects who believe they are in control of the process, the risks associated with waiving counsel, and the advanced psychological techniques used by modern police forces. The episode also covers topics such as the PEACE model of interrogation, the test for 'voluntariness' under Canadian law, and the rights to be informed of charges and to counsel, as protected under sections 10(a) and 10(b) of under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Additionally, it explains where the 'right to silence' is derived from in common law and how it is enshrined under section 7 of the Charter.

In this episode, I provide a full, verbatim reading of the Court of Appeal of Ontario's, Dr. Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario decision that was upheld today by the Supreme Court of Canada, detailing the reasons behind the court's ruling and the implications for professional conduct standards. I offer this episode without comment or opinion on the My intent is to equip listeners with the comprehensive background needed to navigate the upcoming week's discussions and podcasts on this topic. By understanding the full context and rationale behind the court's decision, listeners can form their own informed opinions on this controversial subject.

In this episode, I read the recent decision by the Court of Appeal for Ontario of R. v. Prasad, 2024 ONCA 601. In this case, the Court of Appeal ultimately rejects the appeal and questions the usefulness, and admissibility, of expert evidence opining on the phenomena of "priming" in the context of poor quality intercepted audio.

Akshay Prasad, who was convicted of trafficking cocaine based on intercepted communications. The trial judge heavily relied on these recordings, despite their poor quality, and transcripts produced from digitally enhanced versions of the recordings. Prasad appealed the conviction, arguing that fresh expert evidence showed the recordings and transcripts were unreliable due to the phenomenon of priming, which could bias the listener. The Court of Appeal for Ontario ultimately dismissed Prasad's appeal to reopen the case, maintaining the conviction and ruling that the trial judge had appropriately handled the evidence.

I question whether transcripts should be admissible when it touches close to the ultimate issue in their interpretation and point out the Court of Appeal may be undervaluing how much interpretation goes into any form of transcribing.

In this episode, we explore into the significant legal principles surrounding Jordan delays as established by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Jordan. We break down the process of calculating delays, including total delay, net delay, and the presumptive ceiling for criminal trials. Key cases like R. v. Bowen-Wright and R. v. Lokubalasuriya are discussed to highlight the intricacies of defense delays, exceptional circumstances, and the impact of COVID-19 on trial timelines. We also explore judicial deference and reasonable delays after discrete events, supported by cases like R. v. Toole and R. v. K.J.M. This episode aims to provide a comprehensive overview of how delays are assessed and managed within the Canadian judicial system.

In the case of R. Colley we explore the topic of an interventionist judge who pursued resolution in a case were he thought the accused were both "F*cked" and the video the prosecution was a "f*cking disaster" for the defence: R. v. Colley, 2024 ONCA 524 DATE: 20240703 DOCKET: C66693 & C6880.

The case R. v. Colley at the Court of Appeal for Ontario involves appellants Joel Roberto and Ravyn Colley, who were charged with the first-degree murder of their four-year-old son, Jaelin. The original trial found Roberto guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 18 years, while Colley was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 25 years.

In this episode I explore the dangers of identification evidence by reviewing the recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal of R. v. A.W., 2024 ONCA 564. The “spectre of erroneous convictions based on honest and convincing, but mistaken, eyewitness identification haunts the criminal law” in 2024.

In this episode I discuss the decision of R. v. Harvey (recently dismissed from the Supreme Court of Canada without Reasons) as an example of how the exclusionary rule of evidence is applied under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. I use this case, in comparing it with another with similar facts, in emphasizing the highly subjective nature of Charter exclusion despite it being masked under a mythical archetype of the "reasonable person". I further explore the deprioritization of truth in rights-based reasoning under Canadian jurisprudence.