Naysayers of Complainant Rights Are Making Things Worse for Complainants There is a growing tendency within parts of the legal profession to portray the criminal justice system as complainant-unfriendly, if not outright complainant-hostile. I think that characterization is wrong. More importantly, I think it is harmful. There is no question that the justice system is imperfect. Anyone who has spent any meaningful amount of time in a courtroom knows that. There are delays. There are procedural problems. There are cases in which people are treated poorly. There are laws and practices that can and should be improved. But acknowledging those shortcomings is very different from telling people that the system is fundamentally hostile to them. That distinction matters. When cynicism about the justice system becomes conventional wisdom, it can begin to masquerade as insight. The repeated assertion that the system does not work eventually becomes accepted as though it were an established fact. And once people lose confidence in the justice system, the consequences extend well beyond the courtroom. One of the ironies is that this sort of rhetoric is often presented as being in the interests of complainants. I am not convinced that it is. Over the years, the

Finfluencers Beware: Canada’s Securities Regulators Bring Social Media Investment Advice Under the Spotlight  On December 11, 2025, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) and the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) released Joint Staff Notice 31-369, their first comprehensive guidance on how Canadian securities laws apply to financial influencers— or “finfluencers.” Although framed as guidance rather than new law, the message is unmistakable: social media does not exist outside Canada’s securities regulatory framework.  For years, financial influencers have flourished on platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, X, Discord, and Telegram. Many have attracted hundreds of thousands of followers by explaining investment concepts in accessible language or sharing their own investing experiences. The regulators acknowledge that this phenomenon has had positive effects. Finfluencers have helped democratize financial education, particularly among younger Canadians who increasingly obtain financial information online rather than through traditional financial institutions.The regulators are equally concerned, however, about the risks.  The Staff Notice identifies misleading information, undisclosed conflicts of interest, promotion of speculative investments, and “pump-and-dump” schemes as recurring concerns. Retail investors often cannot distinguish between unbiased commentary and paid promotion, particularly where influencers present themselves as ordinary investors simply sharing personal opinions. Existing Law, Not New Law  One of the most important aspects

A recent CTV News Barrie report on the Gabriel DiCecco verdict highlights how a jury’s findings can turn on the legal distinction between murder and manslaughter. DiCecco was found guilty of manslaughter, rather than murder, in connection with the 2024 shooting death of William Schernhammer near Alliston. The outcome reflects the importance of intent in homicide cases and shows how a defence strategy can focus on whether the evidence supports the most serious charge advanced by the Crown. For anyone facing a serious criminal allegation, the case is a reminder that the details matter. Careful review of the evidence, witness testimony, and legal elements of the offence can have a major impact on the result. https://www.ctvnews.ca/barrie/video/2026/05/30/gabriel-dicecco-guilty-of-manslaughter

A recent Barrie murder trial highlights the important distinction between murder and manslaughter in Canadian criminal law. Gabriel DiCecco was found guilty of manslaughter, rather than murder, in the 2024 shooting death of William Schernhammer after a three-week jury trial. The defence argued that while DiCecco was responsible for the death, the circumstances did not support a murder conviction. The verdict underscores how issues such as intent, provocation, credibility, and the surrounding facts can significantly affect the outcome of a homicide case. For individuals facing serious criminal charges, this case is a reminder of how critical it is to have experienced defence counsel who can carefully examine the evidence, challenge the Crown’s theory, and present the full context to the court. https://www.ctvnews.ca/barrie/article/defence-lawyer-cries-pleads-with-jury-to-convict-client-of-manslaughter-not-murder

CTV News recently covered the ongoing Barrie jury trial of Gabriel DiCecco, an Alliston man accused of first-degree murder and committing an indignity to a dead body in connection with the 2024 death of William Schernhammer. The article highlights forensic evidence presented in court as the Crown continues its case. Criminal defence lawyer Sam Goldstein represents the accused, who has pleaded not guilty. https://www.ctvnews.ca/barrie/article/jury-hears-forensic-evidence-in-trial-of-alliston-man-accused-of-killing-best-friend

Global News recently reported on a Toronto hit-and-run case that resulted in a not guilty verdict. The article reviews the allegations, the evidence presented in court, and the judge’s reasoning in finding that the Crown had not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt. It also touches on the role expert and medical evidence can play in impaired and dangerous driving prosecutions. Read the full article for more background on the case and the court’s decision. You can read the whole article here: https://globalnews.ca/news/11809457/man-charged-toronto-hit-and-run-impaired-case-not-guilty/

Ontario’s Apology Act, 2009 was enacted to ensure that individuals and organizations could say “sorry” without that expression being used as evidence of fault or liability against them. The Act defines an apology broadly, covering statements of sympathy, regret, or compassion, as well as explicit acknowledgements of responsibility and any words or conduct that convey contrition. By removing the legal risk traditionally associated with apologizing, the legislation encourages people to communicate openly and honestly after an incident. The purpose behind the Act was to promote sincere, human interactions in the aftermath of harm by eliminating the fear that an apology could later be weaponized in court. Before the legislation, professionals and institutions were often advised not to apologize, which created distance, mistrust, and unnecessary escalation. The Act was designed to break that pattern by allowing people to express remorse without triggering legal consequences, thereby supporting early resolution, transparency, and more humane communication. What the legislation recognizes is something instinctive: people say sorry even when they are not at fault. Canada is frequently described as one of the most polite societies in the world precisely because saying “sorry” is part of our social reflex. We apologize to defuse tension, to show

When a person tells you, “I had a dream last night,” most people understand exactly what that means. The speaker is about to recount the swirl of mental imagery, sounds, and emotions experienced during sleep. The story of missing a train, falling from the sky, or walking into a classroom naked is not understood as a report of reality but as an account of imagination. Dreams are, almost by definition, the mind untethered from the ordinary constraints of perception and memory. The Spanish surrealist painter Salvador Dalí described dreams as “hand-painted dream photographs.” Yet Canadian criminal law encountered an unusual problem when this common understanding met the courtroom in R v Case, affirming the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal involving the accused Case and Lorrey. In that case, the complainant initially reported that she had a dream in which a man and a woman sexually assaulted her. Over time, however, she came to believe that what she had described as a dream was not a dream at all, but rather a memory of an actual assault. At first glance, the problem appears simple. Ordinary reasoning draws a sharp distinction between dreams and memories. Memories arise from events we

Dating advice is as old as ancient Rome itself. Ovid, the first-century poet, devoted an entire manual—The Art of Love—to the subject. His guidance was straightforward: wear a clean toga, mind your hygiene, and present yourself well. Other advice, however—such as persistent pursuit or ignoring rejection—would today be more likely to attract police attention than romantic success. Dating has changed. In Ovid’s time, the principal risk of misjudging romantic interest was an angry rival or a jealous spouse. Today, the consequences can include criminal charges. In my twenty-seven years practicing criminal law, I have seen a marked increase in cases involving allegations of criminal harassment and sexual assault arising from dating and relationship breakdowns. A significant number involve men who failed to recognize—or refused to accept—that the interest was not mutual. What they understood as persistence, they received as unwanted contact, sometimes resulting in a call from police instructing them to stop. Other cases move in the opposite direction: there is no follow-up after a first date, and resentment takes its place. Emotions escalate, narratives harden, and the criminal law becomes entangled in what began as a private disappointment. There are also cases rooted in jealousy and infidelity, where allegations

It is easier now than ever before for the police to arrest Miss Scarlett for killing Col. Mustard in the library thanks to two professors from the University of Idaho who believe they can determine when a fingerprint was left on an object’s surface, like a lead pipe. Previously, the science of fingerprinting (dermatoglyphics) could tell you only whose fingerprint it was but not how long ago it was made, leaving Miss Scarlett with the reasonable excuse that she had earlier touched the lead pipe. It was Juan Vucetich, an Argentine police official who, in 1891, initiated fingerprinting of all criminals. His efforts led to the conviction of Francisca Rojas for the murder of her 6-year-old son based on her bloody fingerprint left on the child’s bedroom door. In Canada, fingerprinting identification became the primary method of identification for law enforcement purposes in 1908. In fact, the RCMP holds the oldest fingerprint repository in North America. I once unsuccessfully prosecuted a defendant, when I was an assistant Crown attorney, for possession of a stolen car. His fingerprints alone were found on the driver’s door handle. There was no forced entry. The problem was that he had an innocent explanation. He