Some Canadian criminal cases are remembered for the crime. The ones below are remembered for what they did to the law – rules that now apply in every courtroom in the country, including in ordinary cases that never make the news.
R. v. Stinchcombe (1991) – the Crown must hand everything over
Before Stinchcombe, prosecutors decided what to share with the defence. A defence lawyer could go to trial without knowing what witnesses had said.
The Supreme Court ended that. The Crown must disclose all relevant material in its possession, whether it helps the prosecution or damages it. The obligation is ongoing and there is no equivalent duty running the other way.
What it changed: disclosure is now the foundation of every defence. Cases are stayed when it fails.
R. v. Askov (1990) and R. v. Jordan (2016) – the right to be tried in time
Section 11(b) of the Charter guarantees trial within a reasonable time. For years it meant little in practice.
Askov changed that, and thousands of charges were stayed in its aftermath. Delay crept back, and in 2016 Jordan imposed hard ceilings: 18 months from charge to trial in provincial court, 30 months in superior court. Beyond those, delay is presumptively unreasonable and the charge is stayed unless the Crown can justify it.
What it changed: delay is now a live defence in ordinary cases, not just complex ones.
R. v. Oakes (1986) – how rights get limited
David Oakes was found with hash oil and charged under a law that presumed anyone in possession intended to traffic. He had to prove otherwise.
The Supreme Court struck the reverse onus down and, in doing so, built the Oakes test – the framework for deciding when a limit on a Charter right can be justified in a free and democratic society.
What it changed: every Charter challenge in Canada, in every area of law, still runs through this test.
R. v. Grant (2009) – when illegally obtained evidence gets excluded
Police stop someone unlawfully and find a gun. Is it admissible?
Grant set the framework: the court weighs the seriousness of the state conduct, its impact on the accused’s Charter-protected interests, and society’s interest in a trial on the merits.
What it changed: a Charter breach does not automatically exclude evidence, but serious breaches routinely do – and the case collapses with it.
The wrongful convictions
Three cases forced Canada to confront how its system convicts innocent people. Each produced an inquiry, and each inquiry changed practice.
Donald Marshall Jr. – convicted of murder in Nova Scotia in 1971 at seventeen, and imprisoned for eleven years. The royal commission that followed found the justice system had failed him at virtually every stage, and that racism against him as a Mi’kmaq man was a factor throughout.
David Milgaard – convicted of murder in 1970 at seventeen, imprisoned for twenty-three years, exonerated by DNA evidence in 1997. His mother Joyce campaigned publicly for decades.
Guy Paul Morin – convicted in 1992, cleared by DNA in 1995. The Kaufman Inquiry that followed produced detailed findings on the dangers of jailhouse informants, tunnel vision in investigations, and unreliable forensic hair comparison.
What they changed: these inquiries reshaped how disclosure, informant evidence and forensic testimony are treated, and led to Canada’s current framework for reviewing suspected miscarriages of justice.
R. v. Gladue (1999) – sentencing Indigenous offenders
Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code requires courts to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment, with particular attention to the circumstances of Indigenous offenders.
Gladue explained what that means in practice: courts must consider the systemic factors that brought the person before the court, and sentencing options that reflect their heritage and community.
What it changed: Gladue reports are now a standard part of sentencing across Canada.
R. v. Morgentaler (1988) – striking down a criminal law
R. v. Morgentaler (1988) – striking down a criminal lawDr. Henry Morgentaler was repeatedly prosecuted for performing abortions. In 1988 the Supreme Court struck down the Criminal Code provision restricting them as a violation of section 7.
What it changed: it demonstrated the Charter’s power to invalidate criminal legislation outright, and Canada has had no criminal law on abortion since.
R. v. W.(D.) (1991) – how a judge must handle conflicting evidence
Less famous, more used than almost anything above.
Where an accused testifies and contradicts the complainant, the judge must apply three steps: if you believe the accused, acquit; if you do not believe them but are left in reasonable doubt, acquit; and even if their evidence leaves you with no doubt, you must still ask whether the evidence you accept proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
What it changed: it stopped trials from becoming a simple choice between two witnesses. This instruction is argued in provincial courtrooms every day.
Why this matters in an ordinary case
None of these were famous when they started. Stinchcombe was a lawyer charged with fraud. Grant was a street stop. Oakes was found with hash oil.
Each one reached the Supreme Court because someone challenged something that everyone else accepted. That is what defence work is: the disclosure that was never provided, the delay nobody was tracking, the search nobody questioned.
Frequently asked questions
What is the most famous wrongful conviction in Canada? David Milgaard and Donald Marshall Jr. are the two most cited. Milgaard served 23 years for a murder he did not commit before DNA cleared him in 1997. Marshall was convicted at 17 and imprisoned for 11 years; the royal commission that followed found the justice system failed him at nearly every stage.
What is the most famous Canadian criminal case? It depends what you mean by famous. For public attention, the cases involving Paul Bernardo and Robert Pickton. For legal significance, R. v. Stinchcombe, R. v. Oakes and R. v. Jordan – decisions that changed how every criminal case in Canada is run.
Which Canadian cases changed the law the most? Stinchcombe (1991) created the Crown’s duty of full disclosure. Oakes (1986) set the test for justifying limits on Charter rights. Jordan (2016) imposed hard ceilings on trial delay. Gladue (1999) reshaped sentencing for Indigenous offenders.
What did the wrongful conviction inquiries change? Their combined effect was procedural: tighter rules on what the Crown must hand over, deep judicial scepticism toward jailhouse informants, and the end of hair-comparison evidence as proof of identity.
How many murder cases are there in Canada each year? Homicide is rare relative to overall crime – a few hundred incidents nationally in a typical year, against millions of Criminal Code incidents overall. Most criminal courtroom work involves assault, theft, drugs and impaired driving.
What is the trial delay rule in Canada? R. v. Jordan set ceilings of 18 months in provincial court and 30 months in superior court. Delay caused by the defence is deducted, which is why adjournments requested by an accused are recorded so carefully.
Charged with an offence in Toronto?
Jeffrey I. Reisman has practised criminal law in Toronto since 2001, including three years as a prosecutor. He brings Charter applications arising from unlawful searches, improper detentions, disclosure failures and unreasonable delay.
Call 647-351-4357 · Free consultation · Available 24/7
General information about Canadian law as of August 2026. Not legal advice.