Ontario Criminal


Accused unable to understand nature or object of proceedings

Appeal by accused from finding that he was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Finding as made after accused pleaded guilty to one count of criminal harassment and two counts of failing to comply with his recognizance of bail. Appeal dismissed. Medical evidence addressed accused’s inability to understand nature or object of proceedings, his inability to understand possible consequences of proceedings and his inability to communicate with counsel. Trial judge was alert to and he addressed his mind to issue of fitness. He was entitled to rely upon medical evidence. Accused was represented by counsel at trial and neither Crown or defence raised any challenge or expressed any concern about accused’s fitness to stand trial. There was no error in law by judge and there was no miscarriage of justice.

R. v. Krivicic

(Nov. 14, 2011, Ont. C.A., Blair, Juriansz JJ.A. and Pepall J. (ad hoc), File No. C50605) 98 W.C.B. (2d) 279 (15 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?