Source: https://store.thomsonreuters.ca/product-detail/martins-related-criminal-statutes-2018-2019-edition/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:21:45+00:00

Document:
A new edition of this product will be released within the next 60 days.
& International Customers) / 1-800-387-5164 (Canadian & US Customers).
Thoroughly cross-referenced and updated annually, Martin's Related Criminal Statutes contains a winning combination of insight and information.
Martin's Related Criminal Statutes, 2018-2019 Edition is fully annotated by three of Canada's preeminent authorities on criminal law. Available in print and online in CriminalSource, it includes updated non-Criminal Code statutes and related case law. Thoroughly cross-referenced and updated annually, Martin's Related Criminal Statutes contains a winning combination of insight and information.
The phrase “all reasonable assistance” used in s. 231.1(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act does not mean that the CRA can compel a taxpayer to reveal their “soft spots” or uncertain tax positions: BP Canada Energy Company v. Canada (National Revenue), 2017 FCA 61.
According to the Federal Court of Appeal, it is always dangerous and often inappropriate to consider amendments post-dating the version of the statute under review. Doing so may result in an incorrect interpretation of legislation: Apotex Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., 2017 FCA 201, 150 CPR (4th) 211.
The grant of exclusive jurisdiction s. 18(1) of the Federal Courts Act suggests Parliament intended that all questions about the legality of Parole Board orders should be resolved in the Federal Court, not in trial courts. Therefore, offenders who object to a condition of long-term supervision must ask the Parole Board to vary or remove the condition and/or seek to quash the condition in the Federal Court. Challenging the legality of a condition only after being charged with a breach under 753.3 of the Criminal Code is an impermissible collateral attack: R. v. Bird, 2017 SKCA 32.
In R. v. Cameron, 2017 ONCA 150, the Crown, in its closing address, violated the Browne v. Dunn principle by failing to confront the defence psychiatrist with its argument that an intoxicated person was more likely to enter into a state of automatism than a sober one. The trial judge gave an adequate corrective instruction, instructing the jury that they: (1) could not speculate on what the defence expert might have said if asked about the Crown’s position; and (2) could, in determining whether to accept the defence expert’s evidence, take into account that the defence expert was not cross-examined on this point.
The Identification of Criminals Act does not apply where an accused is arrested for a by-law infraction and not an offence referred to in the Code of Penal Procedure in Quebec: Godin v. City of Montreal, 2017 QCCA 1180,  Q.J. No. 10413.
Where the Minister has determined that a substantial risk of torture or mistreatment exists and that diplomatic assurances regarding the treatment of the person sought are needed, the reviewing court must consider whether the Minister has reasonably concluded that, based on the assurances provided, there is no substantial risk of torture or mistreatment. Diplomatic assurances need not eliminate any possibility of torture or mistreatment; they must simply form a reasonable basis for the Minister’s finding that there is no substantial risk of torture or mistreatment: India v. Badesha, 2017 SCC 44.

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