Source: https://www.ulcc.ca/en/annual-meetings/347-2000-victoria-bc/criminal-section-documents-2000/1838-regulating-charter-applications-2000?start=1
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 17:01:00+00:00

Document:
Provincially-constituted courts, provincial superior courts and provincial courts of appeal all enjoy this rule-making power subject to the general limitation mandating consistency with existing statutory provisions.
 A notable exception is the province of Ontario which has detailed Rules of Court for both its provincial superior court and the Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division).
 Collins v. The Queen (1987), 33 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.). While Collins set the cornerstone for procedure in the exclusion application, the subject of 'burden of proof' is far from settled. Reversals of that burden have been, and continue to be established in the jurisprudence. See, for eg. Hunter v. Southam, et al (1984), 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.); R. v. Clarkson (1986), 25 C.C.C. (3d) 207 (S.C.C.); R. v. Oakes (1986), 24 C.C.C. (3d) 321 (S.C.C.); R. v. Baig (1987), 37 C.C.C. (3d) 181 (S.C.C.); R. v. Prosper (1994), 92 C.C.C. (3d) 353 (S.C.C.), R. v. Bartle (1994), 92 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (S.C.C.); R. v. S.(R.J.) (1995), 96 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.); R. v. Burlingham (1995), 97 C.C.C. (3d) 385 (S.C.C.) and, generally, Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant The Law of Evidence in Canada, Butterworths Canada Ltd. 1992, at p.211.
 R. v. Stinchcombe (1991), 68 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.), at p.6.
 Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice in Criminal Proceedings, O.C. 2020/97 (SI97/133).
 These comments appear in the Foreword to the Annotated Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice in Criminal Proceedings 1999, Rick Libman, Carswell, 1999.
 See: Interim Report of the Working Group on Regulating Charter Applications, August 1999.
 And, in particular, Rule 3(a).
 M.(R.E.D.) v. The Director of Child Welfare,  6 W.W.R. 661 (Alta.C.A.).
 R. v. Lee, op cit, fn.4.
 R. v. O'Connor (1995), 103 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.); R. v. Kutynec, op cit, fn.31; R. v. Loveman (1992), 71 C.C.C. (3d) 123 (Ont.C.A.); R. v. Franklin (1991), 66 C.C.C. (3d) 114 (Ont.C.A.); R. v. Chamberlain (1994), 30 C.R. (4th) 275 (Ont.C.A.); R. v. Dwernychuk, (1992) 77 C.C.C. (3d) 385 (Alta.C.A.), leave denied (1993) 46 W.A.C. 317 (S.C.C.); R. v. Holt (1991), 117 A.R. 218 (C.A.); R. v. Yorke (1992), 77 C.C.C. (3d) 529 (N.S.C.A.), aff'd. (1993), 84 C.C.C. (3d) 286n (S.C.C.); R. v. Firth (1991), 70 C.C.C. (3d) 376 (N.S.C.A.); R. v. Howell (1995), 103 C.C.C. (3d) 302 (N.S.C.A.); R. v. Daigle (1994), 80 W.A.C. 257 (B.C.C.A.); R. v. Feldman (1994), 91 C.C.C. (3d) 256 (B.C.C.A.), aff'd in the result (1994), 93 C.C.C. (3D) 576n (S.C.C.); R. v. Pelletier (1995), 97 C.C.C. (3d) 139 (Sask.C.A.).
 In Alberta, the Constitutional Notice Regulation, Alta.O/C 182/99, filed April 28, 1999, requires written notice of applications pursuant to the Charter, s.24. It came into force September 1, 1999.
 R. v. Holt, op cit, fn.15.
 R.v. Dwernychuk, op cit, fn.15.
 R. v. Feldman, op cit, fn.15.
 See, for e.g. R. v. Mills [1999}, 139 C.C.C. (3d) 321; 44 W.C.B. (2d) 124 (S.C.C.) where there was extensive evidence adduced in support of the constitutionality of ss.278.1 to 278.91 C.C.
 See: R. v. Robinson,  A.W.L.D. 72 (C.A.) (December 22, 1999); overruling  A.W.L.D. 365 (Alta.Q.B.) (August 18, 1997) in this regard. "

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