Source: https://store.thomsonreuters.ca/product-detail/martins-annual-criminal-code-2019-edition/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:11:45+00:00

Document:
Martin's Annual Criminal Code continues to deliver excellent value with the highest quality content.
Fully annotated by three of Canada's most respected criminal law experts, Martin's Annual Criminal Code continues to deliver the excellent value with the highest quality content. This text references thousands of reported and unreported cases in a practical and accessible format.
R. v. Carson (2018 SCC) – A “matter of business” relates to the government if it depends on government action or could be facilitated by the government. These include publicly funded commercial transactions for which the government could impose or amend terms and conditions that would favour one vendor over others.
R. v. G.T.D. (2018 SCC) – Where the accused has already invoked his right to counsel, asking “do you wish to say anything?” at the conclusion of a standard police caution breaches the duty to “hold off” articulated in Prosper, supra, and amounts to a violation of the right to counsel.
R. v. Mamouni (2017 Alta CA) – The members of the panel differed on whether the time taken by a trial judge in rendering reasons for judgment counts as delay for s. 11(b) purposes, or whether such delay might amount to “exceptional circumstances” in an appropriate case.
R. v. Jarvis (2017 Ont CA) – A “reasonable expectation of privacy” within s. 162 (1) will generally mean that the complainant must be in the kind of place where privacy is expected. The offence was therefore not made out where the accused teacher had videotaped clothed students in a public place for a sexual purpose.
R. v. Niemi (2017 Ont CA) – As long as the murder and sexual assault are part of the same transaction, it makes no difference that the death preceded the sexualized conduct.
SPCA Montérégie v. Langelier (2017 Que CA) – No appeal lies against an initial decision returning a thing seized to its owner pursuant to s. 490 (1)(a).
R. v. Piapot (2017 Sask CA) – The risk of re-offending must be a risk of violent re-offending to justify a long-term offender designation.
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, S.C. 2017, c. 13 amended the Criminal Code definition of “identifiable group” in s. 318(4) and also amended the principles that a court shall take into consideration on sentencing to include evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on gender identity or expression.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.