Criminal Law Question Pack - Questions
Criminal Law
1. Levi, an Indigenous accused, was charged with unlawful possession of timber under a provincial statute. His lawyer immediately questioned whether the province had jurisdiction to regulate Levi’s activities, especially since the timber was harvested from reserve land. Levi wanted to understand how provincial laws could apply to him as a status Indian.
What is the correct legal principle regarding provincial jurisdiction over Indigenous persons?
A) Provincial laws of general application apply automatically to all Indigenous persons without limitation.
B) Provincial laws apply directly to Indigenous persons only if they do not affect "Indianness" or conflict with federal laws or Aboriginal and treaty rights.
C) Provincial laws never apply to Indigenous persons on reserve land.
D) Provincial laws always require the consent of the affected Indigenous community to be enforceable.
2. Sam is charged with second-degree murder. His counsel argues that Sam’s schizophrenia made him incapable of forming the specific intent to commit murder.
How might the mental disorder impact the charge?
A) It may automatically result in a NCRMD finding.
B) It only applies if Sam was declared unfit to stand trial.
C) It has no bearing once mens rea is proven.
D) It may reduce the charge from second-degree murder to manslaughter.
3. Tyson is charged with discharging a firearm with intent after allegedly firing a handgun during a street confrontation. The preliminary inquiry is underway. A key Crown witness—an alleged bystander—arrives at court but, upon being called to testify, refuses to take an oath or affirmation. The justice warns the witness about the legal consequences of non-compliance, but the witness continues to refuse. The Crown applies to adjourn the hearing so the witness may reconsider, and further requests that the court take enforcement action.
What powers does the justice have in this scenario?
A) The justice may exclude the witness from the proceedings and decline to consider their evidence for the remainder of the inquiry.
B) The justice must permit the Crown to rely on prior out-of-court statements made by the witness if those statements were recorded and previously disclosed.
C) The justice may authorize a separate process to pursue sanctions against the witness if their refusal interferes with the administration of justice.
D) The justice may adjourn the hearing and commit the witness to prison for up to eight days or until the hearing resumes.
4. Shawn, 34, is convicted of uttering threats after angrily confronting a municipal parking officer who had just issued him a ticket. Multiple witnesses confirmed that Shawn yelled, “If I see you again, I’ll break your face.” He then left the area without further incident. At trial, Shawn denied making the statement but was found guilty based on the credibility of the independent witnesses. He has no prior convictions and has maintained full-time employment as a roofer for the past eight years. The Crown proposes a $1,000 fine and a peace bond. The defence seeks a conditional discharge with counselling, arguing that Shawn was simply frustrated, did not intend to act on the words, and presents no ongoing risk.
What is the appropriate sentence?
A) Suspended sentence with probation and counselling.
B) Absolute discharge because no harm occurred.
C) Fine and conditional discharge with anger management.
D) Custodial sentence to deter abuse of public officials.
5. Niko is charged with sexual assault. The Crown proves the actus reus and mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt. Before conviction is entered, the Crown applies to lead evidence that Niko was NCRMD at the time of the offence, over the defence’s objections.
Can the Crown raise this issue?
A) No, only the accused can raise NCRMD as a defence.
B) Yes, but only after proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
C) Yes, but only with consent of the Attorney General.
D) No, unless Niko has previously raised a mental health defence.
6. Nathan, a real estate lawyer facing fraud charges, was called as a witness in a completely unrelated civil trial. Nathan objected to answering certain questions, fearing that his answers might later be used against him in his criminal case. His lawyer explained that there are statutory protections available.
What protection applies to Nathan in these circumstances?
A) Nathan may categorically refuse to answer any questions that may touch on his criminal charges, asserting an absolute right to silence under the Charter.
B) Nathan must answer but his answers cannot be used against him in a future criminal proceeding, except for perjury or contradictory evidence.
C) Nathan may request that the civil matter be adjourned until his criminal trial concludes to avoid prejudicing his defence or unintentionally waiving solicitor-client privilege.
D) Nathan can require the civil court to permanently seal all transcripts of his testimony and prohibit any reference to his evidence in future legal proceedings.
7. Erica is charged with uttering threats against her partner. She has a previous discharge for a similar intimate partner offence. The Crown argues that a reverse onus applies due to recent amendments. Erica’s lawyer contends that reverse onus only applies if there was a conviction.
What is the correct outcome?
A) Reverse onus does not apply because Erica was never convicted.
B) Reverse onus applies only if the new offence involves a weapon.
C) Reverse onus applies because a discharge under s. 730 counts.
D) Reverse onus never applies to intimate partner offences.
8. A subpoenaed witness attends trial but refuses to answer questions, claiming fear of retaliation. The judge warns her but she continues to refuse. The trial is adjourned for three days. When resumed, the witness still refuses to answer. The Crown asks the judge to enforce the subpoena.
What remedy is available to the court in this situation?
A) The court must release the witness and continue the trial with the available evidence unless new testimony becomes accessible.
B) The court may find the witness in contempt and impose a custodial penalty in response to the refusal to comply with the subpoena.
C) The court must terminate the proceeding and declare a mistrial if the witness continues to withhold evidence after being warned.
D) The court may conduct a private examination to determine whether the refusal is justified before issuing any coercive order.
9. Omar, a 29-year-old warehouse worker, is convicted of assault after he punched another patron in the face during an altercation at a bar. The incident was captured on video and shows Omar initiating the physical contact without provocation. The victim suffered swelling and bruising but no long-term injuries. Omar was arrested on site and released on bail with no conditions. He has no criminal record and has since taken steps to address his alcohol use by voluntarily attending weekly counselling. He also wrote a letter of apology to the complainant and entered an early guilty plea. The Crown seeks an intermittent 90-day custodial sentence citing the need for deterrence in public violence cases. The defence proposes a suspended sentence with counselling, citing the isolated nature of the incident, Omar’s remorse, and successful completion of his alcohol treatment plan.
What is the correct sentence?
A) Suspended sentence with probation and alcohol abstinence condition.
B) Conditional discharge because the victim was not seriously hurt.
C) Custodial sentence of 30 days for public violence.
D) Intermittent sentence served on weekends to reflect deterrence.
10. Sophie operated a licensed cannabis retail store in Ontario. During an inspection, it was discovered that one of her employees had sold cannabis to a 17-year-old customer without verifying their age. Sophie argued that she personally had no involvement in the sale. The prosecutor decided to charge Sophie’s corporation under the Cannabis Control Act, 2017.
What is the liability standard for corporations under the CCA?
A) A corporation may be prosecuted only if it is proven that a director was personally aware of and directly contributed to the commission of the offence.
B) A corporation is liable whenever an employee’s conduct breaches a regulatory requirement, regardless of the knowledge or actions of management.
C) A corporation may be held responsible if its leadership is found to have directed, permitted, or played a role in enabling the conduct in question.
D) A corporation cannot be held accountable under the legislation unless an individual offender is first convicted for the same conduct.
11. Daniel was charged with theft under $5,000 after allegedly taking merchandise from a retail store. He was confused about the type of offence he faced and whether he could be tried by a judge and jury. His lawyer explained that because of the nature of the charge, he would not have an election as to mode of trial and would proceed before a judge alone in the Ontario Court of Justice. Daniel wondered if he had any right to request a jury trial.
What classification of offence and trial jurisdiction applies to Daniel’s situation?
A) The offence is prosecuted by indictment and falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the superior trial court.
B) The offence is prosecutable as either summary or indictable, and the accused may elect jury trial once the Crown proceeds by indictment.
C) The offence is subject to summary conviction procedures and must be heard in the provincial court without any option for jury trial.
D) The offence is treated as a federal infraction and is adjudicated before a quasi-judicial body rather than a trial court.
12. During trial for fraud over $5,000, the Crown seeks to amend the indictment mid-trial to add a second count of uttering forged documents based on evidence emerging from cross-examination. Defence counsel objects, citing prejudice and lack of notice.
What governs or restricts the judge’s discretion?
A) Amendments may be made freely if the Crown consents.
B) The judge must allow the accused to be rearraigned and elect again.
C) Amendments are barred after the indictment is preferred.
D) s. 601(2) allows amendments at trial if no prejudice is shown.
13. Darnell is charged with robbery. The Crown discloses officers’ notes, photographs of the scene, and audio of a police radio call. However, one witness statement is missing. The officer who took the statement was suspended for misconduct unrelated to this case, and the Crown claims the notes were lost. Defence seeks a remedy for nondisclosure.
What is the court likely to do?
A) Exclude all witness evidence obtained by the officer on the basis that its reliability cannot be assessed without full disclosure.
B) Declare a mistrial if the loss of the statement creates irreparable harm to trial fairness that cannot be remedied through other means.
C) Impose restrictions on public reporting until the Crown has resolved the disclosure gap and clarified the evidentiary record.
D) Grant an adjournment and require the Crown to account for the missing material while seeking alternatives or substitutes where possible.
14. Rita is charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm. The Crown discloses breathalyzer data and accident reconstruction reports but does not include the accused’s utterances made to paramedics. Defence counsel learns about these statements during a hospital interview. When asked, the Crown says it was unaware the statements were recorded.
Which is the correct statement?
A) The Crown has no obligation to act since the information was unknown at the time of disclosure.
B) The defence must initiate a Charter motion if the omission affects the fairness of the trial.
C) The Crown must make efforts to obtain the statements and disclose them without delay.
D) The defence is required to call the paramedics to access the information through its own means.
15. Omar is found unfit to stand trial. A treatment order under s. 672.59 is sought to return him to fitness. A qualified psychiatrist testifies that a 60-day course of treatment has a high chance of restoring fitness. Omar’s lawyer objects to forced treatment.
What is required for the court to make a treatment order?
A) That a physician confirms the treatment is likely to restore fitness within the prescribed period and all legal conditions are satisfied.
B) That a physician confirms the treatment is necessary to maintain stability and all legal conditions are satisfied.
C) That a physician confirms the treatment is likely to control symptoms within the prescribed period and all legal conditions are satisfied.
D) That a physician confirms the treatment is appropriate to manage mental health within the prescribed period and all legal conditions are satisfied.
16. Liam was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking. During pre-trial discussions, the Crown informed Liam’s lawyer that certain third-party records, including confidential informant information, would not be disclosed. Liam’s lawyer considered filing an application to challenge the nondisclosure.
What general rule applies when the Crown refuses to disclose materials on the basis of privilege?
A) The Crown’s refusal to disclose privileged records is presumed valid and cannot be reviewed by the court.
B) The Crown’s refusal to disclose privileged records is binding unless there is evidence of improper purpose or bad faith.
C) The Crown’s refusal to disclose privileged records is subject to review, and disclosure may be compelled to protect trial fairness.
D) The Crown’s refusal to disclose privileged records must be withdrawn if the contents are relevant to the defence.
17. Farrah is charged with sexual assault involving a 14-year-old complainant. She is self-represented. During the preliminary inquiry, Farrah seeks to personally cross-examine the complainant. The Crown brings an application under s. 486.3 to have counsel appointed to conduct the cross-examination. The complainant is visibly anxious, and the Crown argues that the youth’s age and nature of the charge justify protective measures. Farrah objects, asserting that the appointment of counsel limits her ability to confront her accuser and prepare a full defence.
What must the justice do in these circumstances?
A) Permit Farrah to conduct the cross-examination unless the complainant raises a formal objection.
B) Direct that Farrah submit her proposed questions in advance for the court’s assessment of appropriateness.
C) Appoint counsel to conduct the cross-examination unless the interests of justice require otherwise.
D) Allow Farrah to proceed with the cross-examination under supervision by the Crown or another official present.
18. Isabella was charged with trafficking Schedule I substances and was committed to stand trial after a preliminary inquiry. She believed the justice had made legal errors during the hearing, including admitting unreliable written statements under s. 540(7). Isabella asked her lawyer whether she could appeal the committal decision.
What is the correct legal route for challenging a committal after a preliminary inquiry?
A) Isabella may appeal the committal order directly to a higher court if she believes legal errors occurred.
B) Isabella must seek judicial review by applying to have the committal set aside for exceeding the inquiry’s legal limits.
C) Isabella must raise the issue at trial by challenging the admissibility of the statements relied upon at the hearing.
D) Isabella may request that the preliminary inquiry justice reopen the proceeding to correct procedural errors before trial.
19. Victor is found unfit to stand trial. After multiple review board hearings over four years, the board concludes Victor is unlikely to become fit and does not pose a significant risk to public safety. The court initiates an inquiry.
What must be proven before the court can stay the proceedings?
A) That Victor’s legal rights have been impaired by delays or procedural unfairness.
B) That Victor is unlikely to engage in further treatment or participate meaningfully in the proceedings.
C) That Victor is not likely ever to become fit, is not a significant threat, and a stay is in the interest of justice.
D) That Victor has repeatedly refused assessments and will not cooperate with court-ordered evaluations.
20. Jasper is facing charges of sexual interference. Defence learns that the complainant attended counselling sessions at a community agency after the alleged incident. The records are not in the Crown’s possession. Defence believes the complainant made contradictory statements during these sessions and wants to subpoena the records. The Crown opposes disclosure, citing privacy.
What must defence counsel do?
A) Submit a request to police for access to any notes in their possession relating to the complainant’s counselling.
B) Argue that the Crown’s failure to obtain and disclose the counselling records violates the accused’s right to disclosure.
C) File a formal application supported by affidavit and provide notice to the complainant and the record holder.
D) Bring an application asking the court to compel production on the basis that the records are relevant to credibility.
21. Jasmine was arrested for an alleged assault offence and taken into custody. The police decided not to release her immediately because they had concerns about the safety of the complainant. Jasmine’s lawyer explained that she must be brought before a justice within a certain timeframe for a bail hearing. Jasmine wanted to know whether it mattered that the justice would not be available until the following morning.
What rule governs the timing of her initial appearance?
A) Jasmine must be brought before a justice as soon as possible, and in any event within 48 hours of arrest.
B) Jasmine must be released if a justice is unavailable within 12 hours.
C) Jasmine must be held until the next scheduled court session, regardless of the time elapsed.
D) Jasmine must be brought before a justice within 24 hours or as soon as possible thereafter if a justice is not available.
22. Jasmeet is charged with an indictable offence not listed under ss. 469 or 553. She elects trial by judge alone in the Superior Court of Justice. After reviewing disclosure, she decides to reelect trial by judge and jury. Her trial is scheduled in 70 days. Crown refuses consent.
Can she reelect?
A) No; there are fewer than 90 days before trial and the change is no longer permitted.
B) Yes; Crown consent is not required since it is more than 60 days before trial.
C) No; once a re-election has been made in the proceeding, no further change is allowed.
D) Yes; but she must first obtain leave from the court to vary the mode of trial.
23. Marcus was charged with trafficking a firearm and detained for a bail hearing. His lawyer advised him that the burden would be on Marcus to show why he should be released, not on the Crown to justify detention. Marcus was surprised because he thought the Crown always had to prove why someone should stay in custody.
Why does the burden shift in Marcus’s case?
A) The reverse onus applies because the offence is punishable by life imprisonment under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
B) The reverse onus applies because Marcus is not ordinarily resident in Canada.
C) The reverse onus applies because Marcus is charged with a firearm-related offence where reverse onus is statutorily imposed.
D) There is no reverse onus; Marcus is mistaken.
24. Michael is arraigned on a charge of aggravated assault in the Superior Court of Justice. When the indictment is read to him, he stares at the judge in silence and refuses to speak. After being addressed a second time, he crosses his arms and says nothing. The trial judge asks him directly whether he pleads guilty or not guilty, but Michael continues to remain silent. The Crown requests that the matter proceed.
How must the trial judge respond?
A) Enter a plea of not guilty and proceed with trial as if the plea had been made by the accused.
B) Terminate the proceeding on the basis that the accused has declined to respond to the charges.
C) Enter a plea of guilty on the accused’s behalf after confirming that he understands the consequences.
D) Postpone the proceeding and order an assessment to determine the accused’s ability to participate.
25. Police conducting an impaired driving checkpoint randomly stop a vehicle and smell alcohol. The driver admits to drinking and shows signs of impairment. Officers demand an approved screening device (ASD) test, but the driver insists on speaking with a lawyer first. The test is administered anyway, and the driver is charged.
What is the most accurate statement regarding the driver’s rights?
A) The test was improper because the accused had not yet spoken with legal counsel when it was administered.
B) The test was proper because the obligation to comply with a roadside demand takes priority over access to counsel.
C) The test was improper unless the accused was given written notice of the right to counsel and waived it.
D) The test was proper only if conducted within a brief and objectively reasonable period following the initial stop.
26. During a warrantless search of Malik’s home, police seized drugs. His counsel files a Charter motion under s. 24(2), arguing an unreasonable search under s. 8. There was no preliminary inquiry. The defence notice of application includes grounds but lacks detailed facts.
What procedural problem arises here?
A) The court must dismiss the application without hearing it because it lacks sufficient legal merit.
B) The application is deficient unless it sets out specific facts supporting the alleged rights breach.
C) The judge must defer the application until after the Crown’s evidence is fully presented.
D) The motion cannot proceed unless supported by an independent report detailing the search’s legality.
27. Nadine, a 40-year-old woman with no criminal record, is convicted of arson under s. 434 for setting fire to a garbage dumpster behind her apartment building following a heated dispute with her landlord. The fire occurred at 2 a.m. and required intervention by the fire department, but no one was injured and the damage was contained. She immediately admitted responsibility, explaining that she was experiencing an unmanaged mental health crisis related to her bipolar disorder. Since her arrest, she has received regular psychiatric treatment and her condition is now stable. The Crown seeks an 18-month custodial sentence citing the inherent danger of fire and risk to public safety. Defence proposes a conditional sentence with strict mental health and curfew conditions.
What is the appropriate sentence?
A) Conditional sentence with community-based mental health supports and regular supervision.
B) Absolute discharge due to the psychiatric context and lack of harm or criminal history.
C) Suspended sentence with mandatory counselling and psychiatric follow-up conditions.
D) Custodial sentence with post-release probation addressing mental health and public safety.
28. Trevor is charged with robbery, an indictable offence under s. 344. The Crown proceeds by indictment. Trevor appears before a justice and does not make an election when prompted. The co-accused elects trial by judge and jury. Trevor’s counsel insists his client wants a judge-alone trial and challenges the process.
What result follows?
A) Trevor may elect judge-alone trial if he takes proper steps before the preliminary hearing.
B) Trevor is presumed to have elected judge and jury based on the absence of a response.
C) Trevor’s original appearance is incomplete, and the election must be re-entered before a judge.
D) Trevor’s preference controls unless the Crown brings an application for a joint jury trial.
29. During a weapons investigation, officers approach a suspect in a parking lot based on an anonymous tip. They demand identification and begin searching his vehicle’s interior. No arrest is made. The suspect is later charged after a prohibited firearm is found under the seat. At trial, his lawyer argues that the interaction was an arbitrary detention and the search was unconstitutional.
What is the likely holding?
A) The search was valid because it occurred in a public place and the suspect was not under arrest.
B) The search was invalid because officers lacked a warrant and the vehicle was not in motion.
C) The search was valid if officers reasonably believed a weapon was present.
D) The search was invalid because the officers had no objective grounds to detain or search.
30. Alexis, a 42-year-old former school librarian, is convicted of possession of child pornography after police found 37 images and 12 short videos on her personal laptop during an unrelated cybercrime investigation. There is no evidence that she shared, distributed, or created the content. She was immediately terminated from her job upon arrest. She cooperated with police, pled guilty, and has since undergone extensive psychotherapy. The forensic assessment indicates no history of prior offending and places her risk of reoffending as low. Her lawyer argues that her possession was linked to unresolved trauma and emphasizes her ongoing treatment. The Crown seeks an 18-month custodial sentence. The defence proposes a conditional sentence with house arrest and long-term therapy, arguing that Alexis has shown commitment to rehabilitation and poses no threat to the public.
What is the most appropriate sentence?
A) A fine combined with a lifetime ban on accessing internet-enabled devices.
B) A conditional sentence with community supervision and long-term counselling.
C) A custodial sentence followed by probation and mandatory registration requirements.
D) A suspended sentence with mandatory therapy and restrictions on association and travel.
31. Shane is charged with an offence under s. 244.2 involving a firearm and was on a previous release for another indictable offence. At the bail hearing, the Crown argues that Shane must now justify why he should be released. Shane’s counsel disagrees, asserting that the burden is on the Crown.
Who bears the onus of proof at this hearing?
A) The Crown, because the firearm charge is treated the same as any other serious offence at bail.
B) Shane, because the law shifts the burden when certain offences are committed while already on release.
C) The Crown, unless there is a prior conviction for violence or breach of conditions.
D) Shane, but only if the circumstances involve direct harm or public endangerment.
32. Jasper is charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking. Following a preliminary inquiry where the Crown called three witnesses and introduced expert testimony on drug packaging, the justice commits Jasper to stand trial. Jasper’s lawyer believes that no evidence was led on the specific intent to traffic. She files an application to challenge the committal, alleging that the justice exceeded jurisdiction in finding sufficient evidence.
What is the appropriate legal route for challenging the committal?
A) Bring an application for review before a superior court within the permitted time based on jurisdictional error.
B) File a notice of appeal to a higher court alleging that the preliminary decision was reached in error.
C) Reopen the hearing and request that the matter be reconsidered by the same justice.
D) Make a motion before trial asking the judge to find that the Crown has failed to prove intent.
33. Raj is charged with an offence listed in s. 469 and brought before a justice of the Ontario Court of Justice. He requests a bail hearing but is told that only a Superior Court judge can hear his application. Raj claims this delay violates his right to reasonable bail.
What is the most accurate legal position?
A) Raj must be heard immediately under s. 515 like all other accused.
B) Raj is entitled to a bail hearing before the justice who remanded him.
C) Raj must apply to a Superior Court judge for judicial interim release.
D) Raj can only apply after his trial date is set.
34. Aiden was convicted of robbery after a jury trial and wanted to appeal both his conviction and sentence. His lawyer explained that Aiden had the right to appeal certain issues without needing permission, but would require leave for others. Aiden asked whether he could appeal factual findings made by the jury.
What is the correct statement regarding Aiden’s rights of appeal?
A) Aiden can appeal on questions of fact without needing leave.
B) Aiden can appeal only questions of law without leave; appeals on fact or mixed fact and law require leave.
C) Aiden must seek leave to appeal any conviction regardless of the issue.
D) Aiden may not appeal any jury verdict without the Attorney General’s consent.
35. Devon is 11 years old and witnessed a violent robbery outside his school. He is called as a Crown witness. The defence challenges his ability to testify due to his age and emotional state. The judge conducts a voir dire to determine whether Devon can give sworn evidence.
What is the appropriate test to apply in assessing Devon’s capacity to testify?
A) Whether Devon understands court procedure and can describe events accurately.
B) Whether Devon can understand and respond to questions, and can promise to tell the truth.
C) Whether Devon’s recollection is supported by reliable accounts from other witnesses to the same incident.
D) Whether Devon appreciates that making false statements in court may result in punishment or legal consequences.
36. Following a preliminary inquiry in which two witnesses testified about a violent altercation, the accused, Mo, is committed to stand trial on a charge of aggravated assault. When preparing the indictment, the Crown adds a new count of attempted murder, arguing that the facts heard at the inquiry support this additional charge. Mo’s lawyer objects, arguing that the new count was not part of the original information and prejudices Mo’s ability to prepare.
Is the Crown permitted to add this new charge?
A) No, because it was not part of the original information and must be addressed separately.
B) Yes, but only with the consent of the accused or Attorney General.
C) No, because it fundamentally alters the nature of the case against the accused.
D) Yes, if the new charge is supported by the evidence adduced during the preliminary inquiry.
37. Isla was charged with robbery and elected to be tried by a judge and jury. After Crown counsel finished presenting its case, Isla’s lawyer believed that there was no evidence capable of supporting a conviction and decided to bring an application for a directed verdict of acquittal. The trial judge reviewed the evidence carefully and considered the applicable standard.
What is the correct test that the trial judge must apply in deciding a motion for a directed verdict?
A) Whether the evidence presented by the Crown is persuasive enough to likely result in conviction.
B) Whether there is any admissible evidence which, if believed, could reasonably support a conviction.
C) Whether the accused has raised sufficient evidence to create reasonable doubt.
D) Whether the evidence overwhelmingly favours the defence.
38. The Crown seeks detention of Natasha, arguing that her release would undermine confidence in the administration of justice. Natasha has no criminal record and is charged with a serious offence involving a firearm. Her counsel challenges this ground as too vague and speculative.
How should the court approach the tertiary ground?
A) The court must consider this ground only where the offence relates to terrorism or involves a loss of life.
B) The court must assess whether legal professionals would view release as undermining the integrity of the justice system.
C) The court must evaluate whether the accused has a documented pattern of violent or high-risk conduct.
D) The court must balance the offence, strength of the Crown’s case, and broader circumstances.
39. Jake, an adult with a developmental disability, is called as a witness in a fraud trial. Defence counsel challenges his capacity under s. 16 of the CEA, arguing Jake cannot understand an oath. The judge conducts an inquiry and finds that while Jake cannot articulate the significance of an oath, he can clearly describe events and answer questions reliably.
What is the appropriate result under the Canada Evidence Act?
A) Jake is not permitted to testify because he cannot explain the meaning of an oath or affirmation.
B) Jake may give evidence only if communication support is provided to ensure full understanding.
C) Jake’s testimony is inadmissible unless it is supported by independent, confirmatory evidence.
D) Jake may testify if he promises to tell the truth, even if he does not understand the formal oath.
40. Crown counsel applies for a change of venue under s. 599 due to concerns about public safety after a high-profile shooting involving a local gang. The application is filed 20 days before trial, with an affidavit from a senior officer describing threats against a witness, and a proposed new location in a nearby region. The defence opposes the motion, citing inconvenience.
What is the correct outcome?
A) The motion must be dismissed because only the accused may request a change of venue in criminal proceedings.
B) The motion is procedurally defective because it was not filed at least 30 days prior to the trial date.
C) The motion may be granted if the court finds that a change of location is necessary to ensure fairness and protect participants.
D) The court must proceed in the original venue and provide instructions to the jury to disregard external publicity.
41. During an investigation into corporate fraud, police apply for a production order requiring a law firm to produce emails and draft contracts related to a former employee’s severance agreement. The law firm asserts solicitor-client privilege and refuses to comply without judicial oversight. The Crown brings a motion to enforce compliance immediately.
What is the proper resolution?
A) The court must appoint a neutral reviewer to examine the documents for privilege before they are disclosed.
B) The firm must comply with the order and raise any privilege concerns during the criminal proceedings.
C) The order must be enforced without delay, as it was issued by a judge after consideration of relevance.
D) The firm may refuse disclosure on the basis that compliance would breach longstanding professional duties.
42. During jury selection for a charge of aggravated assault causing bodily harm, defence counsel brings a challenge for cause against a potential juror who previously worked with the complainant at a local hospital. The challenge alleges that the juror may be biased due to the prior relationship. The trial judge decides to allow the challenge for cause. The court must now determine how to resolve the issue.
Who decides whether the prospective juror is impartial and can serve?
A) The court appoints two other jurors who hear the challenge and decide the matter based on the responses.
B) The trial judge rules on the challenge after questioning the juror and hearing submissions from both parties.
C) The clerk of the court dismisses the juror from the panel and proceeds to call the next name.
D) The remaining members of the panel vote on the challenge before the juror is permitted to serve.
43. Delia, a resident of Toronto, is accused of publishing defamatory libel online that was accessed by a complainant in Vancouver. Charges are laid in Ontario. Defence counsel argues the court lacks jurisdiction since the alleged harm occurred in another province.
Which of the following best describes how the Criminal Code addresses jurisdiction in cases involving online defamatory publication?
A) The Ontario court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case if the complainant did not suffer reputational harm within the province.
B) The charges must be transferred to the province where the defamatory content was viewed and experienced.
C) A prosecution for defamatory publication may proceed where the content was either created or accessed, depending on the circumstances.
D) Only a federal court may exercise jurisdiction where alleged defamatory content was transmitted across provincial borders.
44. Lorenzo is charged with sexual interference involving a student at the private school where he teaches. He is held in pretrial custody and elects a preliminary inquiry. On the day of the hearing, his counsel requests that he appear by video due to illness and to avoid the logistical challenges of transporting him from the detention centre. The Crown objects, arguing that his physical presence is necessary to assess his reaction to the testimony. The justice reviews Lorenzo’s personal circumstances, the nature of the charge, the availability of remote participation tools, and Lorenzo’s ability to communicate with counsel in real time through a secure channel.
What must the justice be satisfied of before allowing Lorenzo to appear remotely?
A) That the accused has previously attended court in person and is sufficiently familiar with the proceedings and the issues in dispute.
B) That the accused understands the nature and purpose of the proceedings and can participate meaningfully despite the remote format while in custody.
C) That the Crown’s disclosure obligations have been fully met and the accused has received all material in advance of the preliminary hearing.
D) That defence counsel has filed a written confirmation that they are prepared to proceed and will maintain private, real-time communication with the accused throughout the hearing.
45. Eva is charged with trafficking opioids. The Crown discloses surveillance footage, phone records, and officer notes. Defence counsel suspects that the lead officer in the investigation has a history of professional discipline for falsifying reports in drug cases. This was not disclosed. Defence raises the issue at the pre-trial, requesting any misconduct findings.
What is the Crown’s obligation?
A) Review and disclose any records of serious misconduct that could reasonably impact the credibility of the investigation.
B) Withhold the information unless the conduct occurred during the current investigation or formed part of the charge.
C) Provide the records only if the officer is scheduled to be called as a witness by the prosecution.
D) Request a sealing order before determining whether any disciplinary records may be provided to the defence.
46. Grace is charged with sexual assault following an incident at a college residence. The Crown intends to proceed by indictment, and Grace has elected trial in the Superior Court of Justice. At the preliminary inquiry, the Crown declines to call a key witness—another student who allegedly saw the complainant shortly after the incident. The defence, believing the witness may provide exculpatory evidence, applies to call the witness at the inquiry. The Crown opposes, arguing that the defence has no right to compel testimony during a Crown-initiated proceeding.
Under what circumstances may the defence call a witness at a preliminary inquiry?
A) Only if the defence obtains the witness’s consent and the court agrees to hear the testimony.
B) If the person was named in initial disclosure and identified as having material knowledge of the events.
C) Where the defence seeks to preserve testimony or clarify facts directly relevant to issues in dispute.
D) Only after the inquiry judge has found that the Crown’s evidence does not establish a prima facie case.
47. At a bail hearing, the Crown submits a synopsis summarizing police evidence and allegations. The defence objects, saying the summary is hearsay and inadmissible. The Crown argues that strict evidentiary rules don’t apply.
How should the court rule?
A) The synopsis is admissible because hearsay may be relied on if it is reasonably trustworthy and capable of review.
B) The synopsis is admissible only if both Crown and defence agree that the summary accurately reflects the underlying evidence.
C) The synopsis is inadmissible unless presented through direct testimony from the investigating officer.
D) The synopsis is inadmissible unless the presiding justice has independently confirmed its accuracy and completeness.
48. Arjun is charged with aggravated assault. During the investigation, the police obtained video surveillance from three businesses. Only two videos are disclosed. When asked, the Crown explains the third video was deleted by the business before it could be retrieved. Defence argues that this impaired their ability to build a self-defence claim and seeks a stay of proceedings.
What is the correct result?
A) The court will assess the explanation for the missing evidence and determine whether any prejudice justifies a remedy.
B) The trial must continue because the Crown cannot be held responsible for evidence not in its possession.
C) A stay must be entered if the defence shows that the missing evidence could have assisted in their theory of the case.
D) The missing footage must be reconstructed through testimony or the prosecution cannot proceed.
49. Caleb was charged with assault causing bodily harm after an altercation outside a nightclub. At his first court appearance, Caleb’s lawyer raised concerns about Caleb’s ability to understand the proceedings, citing erratic behaviour and confusion about the role of the judge. The Crown opposed the request for a fitness assessment, arguing there was insufficient evidence.
What is the correct legal position regarding ordering a fitness assessment?
A) The judge must grant the request for assessment if the accused or defence counsel raises concerns about capacity.
B) The judge may direct an assessment if there are grounds to believe it is needed to determine trial fitness.
C) The judge can consider fitness only after the trial has concluded and a verdict has been reached.
D) The judge requires Crown agreement before initiating any step involving a psychiatric fitness review.
50. Mason, a 16-year-old, was arrested for robbery and detained for a bail hearing. His lawyer argued that, under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), pretrial detention must be treated differently than for adults and that custody should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. The Crown responded that detention was justified because Mason was likely to miss future court dates.
What is the correct test the court must apply when deciding whether to detain a young person before trial?
A) Whether detention is justified for general deterrence purposes.
B) Whether detention is necessary based on primary, secondary, or tertiary grounds, considering the presumption against detention and the availability of responsible adults.
C) Whether the severity of the charge automatically supports detention regardless of individual circumstances.
D) Whether the young person consents to detention.
51. Olivia is charged with theft from her employer. The Crown discloses time logs, security footage, and witness statements. Defence learns that the employer conducted an internal audit but refuses to release the report to the Crown, citing confidentiality. Defence believes the audit may contain exculpatory details and asks the Crown to obtain it. The Crown declines, stating it is not within their control.
What should the defence do?
A) Issue a subpoena to the employer and request production of the audit during the trial.
B) Ask the Crown to compel the employer to release the report as part of the Crown’s disclosure obligation.
C) Bring a constitutional application alleging that the Crown failed to take steps to preserve key evidence.
D) Apply to the court for access to the report using the process applicable to records held by third parties.
52. To investigate a high-level drug ring, officers request a general warrant authorizing covert access to encrypted private messages on a suspect’s smartphone. The application explains that the suspect uses disappearing messages and end-to-end encryption, making other investigative tools ineffective. The warrant is granted. After the accused is charged, defence argues the warrant should be quashed because the technique used is effectively equivalent to wiretapping.
What is the strongest argument for the defence?
A) The warrant is invalid because police cannot intercept messages protected by encryption.
B) The warrant is invalid because a general warrant cannot authorize techniques covered by specific wiretap provisions.
C) The warrant is valid if officers acted in good faith and with prior judicial authorization.
D) The warrant is invalid because the evidence obtained was not listed in the original application.
53. Avery was charged with fraud and was being tried jointly with her coaccused, Madison. The Crown sought to call Madison as a witness against Avery during the joint trial. Avery’s lawyer objected, arguing that Madison could not be compelled to testify while their matters were still joined.
What is the correct legal position regarding the compellability of coaccused in a joint trial?
A) A coaccused is always competent and compellable for either the Crown or the defence.
B) A coaccused in a joint trial is neither competent nor compellable unless their matter is concluded.
C) A coaccused becomes competent only if both accused consent in writing.
D) A coaccused is competent but not compellable at any stage of the proceedings.
54. A key prosecution witness in a child pornography trial is a forensic expert who prepared a lengthy report analyzing file metadata. The defence agrees to accept the report as evidence, but later decides to cross-examine the expert. The Crown argues the written report is sufficient under s. 657.3 and that the expert need not appear.
What is the correct result under the Criminal Code?
A) The expert is not required to testify if the Crown has followed the proper procedure for filing the report.
B) The defence loses the right to challenge the expert’s evidence after consenting to admit the report.
C) The defence may compel the expert to testify, even if the report has already been accepted by agreement.
D) The report cannot be admitted without live testimony unless accompanied by a sworn declaration.
55. Jordan is scheduled to be tried for robbery in six days. His counsel learns that a key eyewitness is unexpectedly hospitalized and applies for an adjournment under SCJ Rule 26.04. The affidavit details the witness's condition, efforts to locate a replacement witness, and the witness’s importance to Jordan’s alibi. The Crown opposes the motion, arguing the trial should proceed.
Which is the correct statement?
A) The court must deny the motion because consent of both parties is required for an adjournment to be granted.
B) The motion is procedurally defective because it was filed fewer than ten days before the scheduled trial date.
C) The court must delay the matter for a fixed period to allow the missing evidence to be secured before trial resumes.
D) The court has authority to grant the adjournment where it is necessary to preserve the fairness of the proceedings.
56. The Crown proceeds by direct indictment under s. 577, bypassing a requested preliminary inquiry for a sexual assault charge. Defence counsel moves to stay the indictment as abusive, arguing the Crown’s election was strategic to deny access to a voir dire.
How should the court respond?
A) Dismiss the motion; direct indictments are permitted and valid.
B) Grant the stay; the accused has a right to a preliminary inquiry.
C) Order a new preliminary inquiry despite the direct indictment.
D) Strike the indictment unless both the Crown and accused consent.
57. Gabriel was charged with aggravated assault and elected a trial in the Superior Court of Justice. His lawyer believed several evidentiary issues should be resolved before trial to avoid disrupting the proceedings. Gabriel’s counsel sought an early pre-trial motion to exclude certain statements on Charter grounds.
What is the proper timing and method for bringing such a motion?
A) The motion must be heard on the first day of trial, without requiring advance notice to the Crown.
B) The motion must be served and filed at least 30 days before trial, with written notice outlining the grounds.
C) The motion may be raised orally at trial as long as the judge consents to hearing it.
D) The motion must be reserved until the Crown has completed presenting its evidence.
58. Mei, a 27-year-old graduate student, is convicted of mischief under $5,000 for spray-painting political slogans on the front of a federal constituency office during a late-night protest over government environmental policy. She acted alone, caused no permanent damage, and cleaned the surface the next morning after seeing media coverage of the incident. She turned herself in the same day and admitted responsibility during her police interview. At sentencing, she presented letters of support from professors and her employer, and she expressed remorse while maintaining that her actions were misguided but rooted in political belief. The Crown seeks a suspended sentence with probation and community service. The defence seeks an absolute discharge, arguing that the offence was non-violent, symbolic, and that a conviction would irreparably harm Mei’s future career prospects.
What is the most appropriate sentence?
A) Custodial sentence based on the intentional targeting of government property and public messaging.
B) Conditional sentence with community supervision and restrictions on participation in political protests.
C) Absolute discharge in recognition of the minor harm, prompt remediation, and strong mitigating circumstances.
D) Suspended sentence with probation including limitations on expressive conduct and a public apology.
59. Following arrest for possession of a loaded firearm, the accused is placed in a police cruiser. While officers secure the scene, another officer opens the glove compartment of the suspect’s car, which is already locked, and finds a second handgun. Defence argues the second search violated s. 8 of the Charter because the vehicle was secure and the accused had already been arrested.
What should be the court's view?
A) The search is lawful if it occurs within a short timeframe following the arrest.
B) The search is not permitted unless conducted at the exact time of the arrest.
C) The search is invalid because there was no immediate risk to safety or evidence.
D) The search is valid if it occurred before the accused was transported away.
60. Ryan was on trial for aggravated assault in the Superior Court of Justice. At the close of the Crown’s case, Ryan elected not to call any evidence in defence. During closing addresses, Crown counsel criticized Ryan for exercising his right not to testify, suggesting that if he were truly innocent, he would have taken the stand. Ryan’s lawyer immediately objected.
What is the correct legal principle regarding Crown comments on an accused’s silence?
A) The Crown is prohibited from commenting on an accused’s silence at trial.
B) The Crown may only refer to the accused’s silence during cross-examination.
C) The Crown may comment on an accused’s silence if it affects credibility.
D) The Crown may argue that silence is equivalent to an admission of guilt.
61. Naveen is charged with theft under $5,000, a s. 553 offence. At the first appearance, he demands a jury trial. The judge denies the request and sets the matter down for trial before a provincial court judge. Naveen argues his Charter rights are being denied.
What is the correct decision for the court to make?
A) The judge must offer the option of jury trial under s. 11(f) of the Charter.
B) The matter must be transferred to the Superior Court of Justice.
C) The judge properly refused a jury, as s. 553 offences fall within absolute jurisdiction.
D) The accused must apply for a direct indictment to access jury rights.
62. Noah was charged with aggravated assault and elected to have a preliminary inquiry before proceeding to trial. His lawyer filed a statement of issues identifying specific witnesses and narrow factual matters for examination. At the focus hearing, the Crown objected to calling several additional witnesses listed by the defence, arguing they were unnecessary for the limited issues. Noah’s lawyer wanted to insist on calling every listed witness.
What is the correct legal principle regarding the Crown's obligation to call witnesses at a preliminary inquiry?
A) The Crown is required to call all proposed witnesses identified by the defence, regardless of relevance to the stated issues.
B) The Crown must call only those witnesses it considers necessary to establish a prima facie case.
C) The Crown must call any witness requested by the defence, even if the testimony is duplicative or tangential.
D) The Crown must call each person named in the charging documents, regardless of how the defence frames the inquiry.
63. Melissa, a 27-year-old with prior convictions for fraud and theft, is charged with identity theft under s. 402.2(1) of the Criminal Code after using stolen personal information to apply for multiple credit cards, accumulating $15,000 in fraudulent charges. She was on parole for a previous fraud offence at the time of the crime. During sentencing, she expresses remorse but admits she was struggling financially and gave in to temptation. The Crown seeks incarceration due to her history of dishonesty-related offences and breach of parole conditions. Defence argues for a conditional sentence with strict financial monitoring and community service, citing her expressed willingness to repay her victims and participate in rehabilitation.
What is the most appropriate sentence?
A) Conditional sentence with financial monitoring and community service.
B) Suspended sentence with mandatory financial counseling.
C) Intermittent sentence allowing employment rehabilitation.
D) Custodial sentence due to breach of parole and history of fraud.
64. Sophia was charged with assault and received initial disclosure from the Crown, which included basic police notes and witness statements. Her lawyer, after reviewing the materials, suspected that there were video recordings from the scene that were not included. Sophia asked whether she was entitled to request additional disclosure or if the Crown had fulfilled its obligations.
What is the correct statement regarding the scope of Crown disclosure?
A) The Crown is only obligated to disclose materials it intends to rely on at trial.
B) The Crown must disclose all relevant information in its possession or control, whether helpful or harmful to its case.
C) The Crown has no duty to provide any materials unless specifically ordered to do so by the presiding judge.
D) The Crown must disclose only those materials specifically requested by the defence.
65. Anna’s lawyer brings an application for recusal of the trial judge based on a series of harsh comments made by the judge during an earlier bail hearing in which the judge doubted Anna’s credibility. Anna alleges bias and seeks a new trial judge. The application is brought on the first day of trial.
What is the correct legal standard?
A) Whether a reasonable and informed person would conclude that the judge may not approach the case with impartiality.
B) Whether the accused personally believes that the judge’s conduct has created an appearance of unfairness.
C) Whether the judge has made any prior decision involving the accused that could influence the current proceeding.
D) Whether the judge has already addressed constitutional arguments raised by the defence in earlier hearings.
66. At the close of the Crown’s case in a jury trial for break and enter with intent to commit assault, defence counsel brings a motion for a directed verdict. The Crown presented circumstantial evidence including partial fingerprints on a windowsill, video footage showing someone wearing similar clothes, and testimony from a neighbour who heard a noise but could not identify the person. The Crown did not call the homeowner or any witness who saw the accused inside the house.
Defence argues that even if all the Crown’s evidence is accepted as true, it does not establish that the accused was inside the premises or intended to assault anyone. The trial judge must now determine whether to put the matter to the jury or direct an acquittal.
What legal test governs this motion?
A) Whether the Crown’s evidence meets the balance of probabilities required to convict.
B) Whether the accused has called any rebuttal evidence to challenge the allegations.
C) Whether there is any admissible evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict.
D) Whether the Crown has proven both the actus reus and mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt.
67. Ella was convicted of assault causing bodily harm following a trial. At sentencing, her lawyer emphasized that this was her first offence and that she had already begun attending counselling sessions to address anger management issues. The Crown, however, argued that general deterrence and denunciation must be the primary considerations because the offence involved violence against a vulnerable elderly victim.
What is the correct framework that the sentencing judge must apply when deciding Ella’s sentence?
A) The judge must apply the least severe available sanction regardless of the nature of the offence or its impact.
B) The judge must focus solely on the offender’s rehabilitation without considering general deterrence.
C) The judge must select a sentence near the statutory maximum to reflect the need for public accountability.
D) The judge must impose a proportionate sentence reflecting both the gravity of the offence and Ella’s degree of responsibility.
68. Sasha is charged with sexual assault. The Crown seeks to admit a text message from the complainant to a friend describing the event. Defence objects based on hearsay. The judge proposes hearing a voir dire before trial to assess admissibility.
What must happen for the evidence to be admitted through the voir dire?
A) The complainant must testify and deny any motive to fabricate.
B) The friend who received the message must confirm its origin and preserve the original electronic record.
C) The statement must meet the criteria of necessity and reliability.
D) The text must be confirmed by at least two witnesses.
69. Rafael, a 15-year-old, is arrested after allegedly committing assault in a psychotic episode. The police apprehend him without charges and bring him to a psychiatric facility, where a doctor admits him for observation under the Mental Health Act.
What legal authority supports this action?
A) Section 672.59 of the Criminal Code.
B) The Mental Health Act permits police to remove a person for observation up to 72 hours.
C) The Youth Criminal Justice Act requires a psychiatric referral.
D) The Charter mandates hospitalization for minors in crisis.
70. The defence subpoenas a corporate vice-president to testify at a fraud trial where the accused is alleged to have embezzled from the corporation. The VP moves to quash the subpoena, arguing that she cannot be compelled to testify under the Charter as she is effectively “the accused” on behalf of the company. The judge must rule on whether she is compellable.
What is the proper legal analysis?
A) She is a compellable and competent witness because corporations are not covered by s. 11(c) of the Charter.
B) She is not required to testify since her role as a senior officer aligns her with the interests of the accused entity.
C) She cannot be compelled unless the Crown also charges the corporation and makes it a formal party to the proceedings.
D) She must be cross-examined in writing due to privilege.
71. Ethan was arrested after police received a tip that he was hiding evidence related to a robbery in his home. The officers entered Ethan’s residence without obtaining a warrant, claiming that they needed to act quickly to preserve evidence. At trial, Ethan’s lawyer challenged the admissibility of the evidence on the basis that the search violated Ethan’s Charter rights.
What is the most accurate legal principle governing warrantless entries into private homes?
A) Police may enter a residence without prior authorization if they reasonably suspect that waiting would jeopardize the investigation.
B) Warrantless searches of homes are presumed unreasonable, and urgency must make it impracticable to obtain a warrant.
C) Entry into a private residence is always justified where officers believe evidence could be moved or destroyed before a warrant is obtained.
D) Entry into a private residence without a warrant is categorically forbidden, even in time-sensitive investigations.
Case-based Questions
Case 1
Justin is charged with aggravated assault and robbery following an incident outside a nightclub. The Crown proceeds by indictment and seeks a committal to trial. Justin elects trial in the Superior Court of Justice and requests a preliminary hearing. His counsel files a statement of issues naming five witnesses, including a bystander whose testimony allegedly contradicts that of the complainant. The Crown objects, stating that the witness's evidence is irrelevant and requests a focus hearing. During the focus hearing, the Crown agrees to call three witnesses, including the bystander, but refuses to call the fifth, a security guard, arguing his evidence adds nothing probative. Justin’s counsel insists on calling the security guard and provides a synopsis outlining that the guard may have overheard parts of the confrontation. The justice allows the preliminary hearing to proceed with those witnesses and reminds the parties that the hearing’s purpose is not to determine guilt but to assess whether the evidence could support committal.
Questions 72 to 74 refer to Case 1
72. Justin’s lawyer wants to compel the Crown to call the security guard as a witness at the preliminary hearing. Which of the following best reflects the justice’s authority in this situation?
A) The justice must require that all witnesses identified by the defence be called, regardless of whether the Crown considers their testimony useful.
B) The justice has no authority to override the Crown’s discretion in selecting witnesses to call at a preliminary hearing.
C) The justice may manage the conduct of the hearing and decide whether additional testimony is needed in the interest of fairness and efficiency.
D) The justice must exclude any witness the Crown deems duplicative, even if the defence believes their evidence is necessary.
73. Assuming the security guard gives evidence at the preliminary hearing that is later contradicted at trial, under what conditions could the Crown seek to admit his preliminary hearing testimony at trial?
A) If the witness has become unavailable to testify due to death or being outside Canada and the evidence was recorded at the preliminary hearing.
B) If the Crown prefers to avoid calling the witness and his preliminary evidence was considered trustworthy by the justice.
C) If the defence consents and the transcript is consistent with the Crown’s trial theory.
D) If the preliminary hearing evidence was recorded and admitted under s. 540(7), regardless of the witness’s availability.
74. The justice presiding over Justin’s preliminary hearing finds there is some evidence on each essential element of the aggravated assault charge, though it is weak and circumstantial. What is the justice required to do?
A) Commit Justin to trial only if the Crown can prove the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
B) Decline to commit Justin because the evidence lacks sufficient strength to ensure a probable conviction.
C) Commit Justin to trial if there is any admissible evidence that could, if believed, support a conviction.
D) Postpone the inquiry and order a second focus hearing to determine whether additional clarification is required.
Case 2
Renee is charged with trafficking cocaine following an undercover operation in which a police officer posed as a buyer at a bar. She pleads not guilty and elects trial by judge alone. Before the trial begins, defence counsel brings a motion to exclude the undercover officer’s testimony on the basis of entrapment, arguing that the officer approached Renee without any reasonable suspicion. The judge decides to hear the application as a blended voir dire and trial, ruling that all evidence will be admissible for both purposes unless found inadmissible. During the Crown’s case, the officer testifies about the alleged drug transaction and identifies Renee in court. The Crown also tenders video footage from the bar, but the defence challenges its authenticity. At the close of the Crown’s case, the defence moves for a directed verdict, arguing that no reasonable trier of fact could find that Renee had the requisite intent for trafficking.
Questions 75 to 77 refer to Case 2
75. What is the proper legal standard for the trial judge to apply when ruling on the defence’s motion for a directed verdict?
A) Whether the Crown has established each element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt based on the full record.
B) Whether the defence has successfully created a reasonable doubt through cross-examination or re-examination.
C) Whether there is any admissible evidence upon which a properly instructed trier of fact, acting reasonably, could convict.
D) Whether the trial judge believes the Crown’s witnesses were credible.
76. In a blended voir dire and trial, as used in Renee’s case, what is the key procedural principle governing how evidence is treated?
A) All evidence introduced during the voir dire is excluded from the trial record unless the Crown reapplies to admit it.
B) Evidence is simultaneously received for both the voir dire and trial unless later ruled inadmissible.
C) Witnesses must be recalled for their trial testimony even if they were previously examined during the voir dire process.
D) Only viva voce evidence can be considered in the voir dire phase of a blended proceeding.
77. If Renee seeks a stay of any bail conditions pending appeal, what must the Court primarily consider before granting it?
A) Whether she has demonstrated exceptional hardship due to the bail conditions, outweighing the public interest.
B) Whether a notice of appeal has been properly filed and the stay serves the interests of justice.
C) Whether granting the stay could prejudice the Crown’s case or undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.
D) Whether her grounds of appeal raise a serious question of law or mixed fact and law, increasing the likelihood of success.
Case 3
Thomas Chalmers, a 47-year-old repeat offender with multiple prior convictions for drug trafficking and property offences, pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. He was arrested after a police sting operation revealed he had sold fentanyl to an undercover officer on three separate occasions. At the time of arrest, Thomas was on parole for a prior conviction involving heroin trafficking. He has a documented history of addiction, and since his arrest, he has voluntarily enrolled in an intensive inpatient rehabilitation program, with evidence of consistent participation and progress. A Gladue report was submitted, highlighting the intergenerational trauma stemming from Thomas’s removal from his family during the Sixties Scoop. The sentencing judge must consider both the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the prevalence of fentanyl-related deaths in the community, and the fact that Thomas has cooperated with authorities in identifying his supplier.
Questions 78 to 80 refer to Case 3
78. What is the most significant aggravating factor in Thomas's sentencing under the Criminal Code?
A) His voluntary participation in a rehabilitation program.
B) His prior criminal record and the fact that he was on parole at the time of the offence.
C) His Indigenous background and systemic disadvantages noted in the Gladue report submitted to the court.
D) His willingness to cooperate with authorities and assist in identifying individuals higher in the distribution chain.
79. Which principle or objective of sentencing must the judge give primary consideration to in this case, given the offence involved fentanyl trafficking?
A) Rehabilitative goals focused on long-term recovery and addressing the underlying addiction issues.
B) The need to send a strong message of deterrence and denunciation, reflecting the public harm caused by fentanyl trafficking.
C) The statutory direction to consider restraint and alternatives to incarceration for Indigenous offenders.
D) Ensuring sentencing parity by aligning the outcome with decisions in comparable drug cases.
80. How should the sentencing judge consider Thomas’ Indigenous status and the Gladue report?
A) The judge may only reduce the sentence if a clear causal link exists between the systemic factors described and the specific offence committed.
B) The judge should give limited weight to the Gladue report due to the gravity of the trafficking offence and Thomas’s prior criminal record.
C) The judge must meaningfully consider the report and Thomas’s background, even if no direct link is proven between that background and the offence.
D) The judge must treat the Gladue factors as overriding and impose a non-custodial sentence to respect reconciliation principles.