Forum Conveniens is the official blog of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review. The blog is a forum for members of the UofT Law community to share their thoughts on topical developments in the law. Our publications including case commentaries, opinion pieces, and reports on activities within UofT Law.
All are welcome to write for Forum Conveniens! If you have a pitch for a piece, or a paper you would like to convert into a blog post, please visit our submission form here.
Rachel Wickham, JD Candidate at Toronto Metropolitan University
Exploring legal sophistication and detention in Canadian criminal law, Trauma-Informed Sophistication challenges misconceptions about the relationship between trauma and acquiescence. Incorporating contemporary psychological and physiological research about trauma’s impact on individual compliance with detention, Rachel Wickham suggests a new subjective approach to sophistication.
Read MoreEmily Chu, 2L, Volume 82 Articles Editor
In early 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada simultaneously released two decisions regarding the constitutionality of mandatory minimums: R v Hills and R v Hilbach. Emily Chu argues that the Hilbach majority’s reluctance to strike down the mandatory minimum sentence in that case undermines its message put forward in Hills, which signaled support for principles of individualized sentencing reconciliation.
Read MoreLaura Cameron, 3L, Volume 81 Articles Editor
If an individual has been unlawfully detained and questioned, can police make a “fresh start” midway through the interrogation to insulate any evidence subsequently obtained from the earlier violations of Charter rights? In R v Beaver, a five-member majority of the SCC answered this question in the affirmative. 3L Laura Cameron explores why this adjustment represents a concerning development.
Read MoreGordon Lee, 3L
The Supreme Court of Canada often makes claims about public opinion, but how accurate are these claims really? Gordon Lee argues that the Supreme Court's claims about public opinion are in fact made without evidence, with potential harm to the public perception of the integrity of the justice system.
Read MoreCaeleb Goff, 2L, Volume 81 Executive Editor of Forum Conveniens
Censorship of perceived obscenity is an increasingly prevalent phenomenon in North America. In the latest Forum Conveniens blog post, UofT 2L Caeleb Goff places this trend within its historical origins, dating back to the application of obscenity laws to the works of Oscar Wilde.
Read MoreJerry Zhu, 3L, Senior Editor
In R v Chow, the Ontario Court of Appeal had to determine whether an Airbnb owner could reasonably expect Charter privacy protections while the unit was being rented out. Jerry Zhu examines the decision’s uncertain implications for property owners’ constitutional privacy rights moving forward.
Read MoreRebecca Rosenberg, 3L, Volume 81 Senior Editor
When do we want citizens to know and apply their rights? In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in R v Tessier, Senior Editor Rebecca Rosenberg discusses the implications of the ruling for individuals who are questioned by police in the course of an investigation.
Read MoreIsablle Savoie, 3L, UTFLR Editor-in-Chief
Does section 8 of the Charter extend to video surveillance of your front yard? R v Aubrey, 2022 ONSC indicates that Ontario courts are willing to push back on law enforcement and recognize a citizen’s reasonable expectation of privacy on their property – even when its visible to the general public.
Read MoreCaitlin Salvino, 2L, UTFLR Articles Editor
In R v Kirkpatrick, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that removing a condom without a partner's consent during sex is an act of criminal sexual assault. Articles Editor Caitlin Salvino unpacks the decision and its implications for campus sexual violence policies.
Read MoreTrent Erickson, 3L, Senior Editor
How should Courts consider the plea resolution disucssion on sentencing from the Crown and defence council in a criminal trial? Senior Editor Trent Erickson examines the upcoming appeal of Kerry Alexander Nahanee v Her Majesty the Queen to propose an extended Anthony-Cook test in cases where there is a range of acceptable sentences produced through plea agreements.
Read MoreSterling Mancuso, 2L, Volume 80 Senior Forum Editor
Can Parliament criminalize “blind bidding” in the Canadian housing market, under the Constitutional division of powers? Senior Forum Editor Sterling Mancuso discusses.
Read MoreJack Olson, 2L, Volume 80 Senior Forum Editor
In the second blog of a two-part series, Senior Editor Mashoka Maimona analyses R v Chouhan and R v Kokopenace to illustrate the growing divide within the Supreme Court regarding whether diversity-enhancing mechanisms in the jury selection process are desirable and practical. Maimona also argues in favour of the need for increased diversity-enhancing measures in the aftermath of Bill C-75.
Read MoreRachel Allen, 3L, Volume 80 Senior Editor
Senior Editor Rachel Allen provides an analysis of Ontario (Attorney General) v G, and the history of systemic stigmatization and long-term consequences of being declared not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (“NCRMD”).
Read MoreMashoka Maimona, 3L, Volume 79 Senior Editor
In this first blog in a two-part series, Senior Editor Mashoka Maimona discusses R v Chouhan and the federal government’s elimination of peremptory challenges under Bill C-75 as it relates to bias in juries.
William Rooney, 3L, Volume 79 Senior Editor
The Jordan framework determines whether there is a s. 11(b) violation (trial within a reasonable time). Senior Editor William Rooney argues that the recent decision in R v KGK limits the Jordan framework by excluding the verdict deliberation time from the s. 11(b) inquiry and more broadly, it “insulates” the judiciary from being held accountable for delays in reaching a decision.
Read MoreEmma Ryman, 3L, Volume 78 Senior Editor
Under the Jordon Framework, the "reasonable time" in which a person has a right to be tried under s. 11(b) of the Charter is 18 months. In KJM, the Supreme Court declined to reduce that that presumptive trial delay ceiling for young offenders to 15 months for young offenders, although the Court did unanimously agree that young offenders have an enhanced need for timeliness in their criminal proceedings. Senior Editor Emma Ryman considers the implications.
Read MoreRyan Dorsman, 3L, Volume 78 Senior Editor
How will Bill C-75 change the Canadian bail regime? Senior Editor Ryan Dorsman presents a guide to our current bail system, and what changes will soon be made through the new legislation.
Read More
