\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
In R v Hussein, <\/em>2026 SCC 2<\/a> [Hussein<\/em>], the Supreme Court of Canada (\u201cSCC\u201d) clarified the Corbett application, which allows an accused to seek an order preventing cross-examination on their criminal record.\u00a0While the Corbett application has been upheld, this Comment compares Hussein <\/em>with the original R v Corbett<\/em>, 1988 CanLII 80<\/a> (SCC) [Corbett<\/em>] case and argues that Hussein<\/em> appears to favour La Forest J.\u2019s Corbett <\/em>dissent.\u00a0<\/p>\n Facts<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n In the blue hours of a post-party morning, a man was fatally stabbed (Hussein, <\/em>para 10). No one witnessed the stabbing (Hussein, <\/em>para 10). When the police arrived, Awale Hussein (\u201cMr. Hussein\u201d) was the only member of the party who had fled (Hussein, <\/em>para 12). The subsequent police investigation produced several pieces of evidence against Mr. Hussein: his blood was at the scene; he had an incised thumb wound; he lived at a friend\u2019s house without a cellphone; and, after learning he was a suspect, he shaved his head (Hussein, <\/em>paras 13\u201314).\u00a0<\/p>\n Judicial History<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n At the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, <\/em>Mr. Hussein sought to exclude his 17-entry criminal record through a Corbett application (Hussein, <\/em>para 15). The trial judge dismissed the Corbett application, finding that admitting Mr. Hussein\u2019s criminal record:<\/p>\n Mr. Hussein appealed, arguing that the trial judge made errors in principle. The Court of Appeal for Ontario (\u201cONCA\u201d) dismissed the appeal and determined that, while the trial judge understated the risk of the jury\u2019s prohibited propensity reasoning, this understatement was not material (Hussein<\/em>, para 21). The ONCA also held that the trial judge did not err in considering the strength of the Crown\u2019s case when rejecting the Corbett application (Hussein<\/em>, para 20). Nor did the trial judge err in weighing the probative value of Mr. Hussein\u2019s criminal record against its prejudicial effect (Hussein, <\/em>para 22).<\/p>\n Issue(s)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n The main issue before the SCC was whether the trial judge erred by dismissing the Corbett application and thus opening up Mr. Hussein\u2019s entire criminal record for cross-examination (Hussein, <\/em>para 24).\u00a0<\/p>\n Decision<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Majority<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n Chief Justice Wagner, writing for the majority, clarified the Corbett framework governing the Crown\u2019s cross-examination of an accused on their criminal record. He set out 9 main clarifications, mostly in response to Mr. Hussein\u2019s submissions:\u00a0<\/p>\n In light of these clarifications, the trial judge erred in applying the Corbett framework by unreasonably minimizing the prejudicial effect, and subsequent risk of improper propensity reasoning, of admitting Mr. Hussein\u2019s criminal record (Hussein, <\/em>paras 130\u2013132). The trial judge also erred in his determination of the criminal record\u2019s probative value by using \u201ccontempt for the law\u201d reasoning, as well as failing to account for Mr. Hussein\u2019s youth offences (Hussein, <\/em>paras 134\u2013136). Finally, the trial judge should not have determined the distortion factor to be dispositive (Hussein, <\/em>para 137).\u00a0<\/p>\n These errors were serious and would justify a new trial (Hussein, <\/em>para 140). However, the evidence of Mr. Hussein\u2019s guilt was overwhelming and thus would not have led to a different verdict in a new trial (Hussein, <\/em>paras 145\u2013153).\u00a0<\/p>\n Concurring<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n While Jamal J. affirmed Mr. Hussein\u2019s conviction, he would not have modified the Corbett framework (Hussein, <\/em>para 155). Jamal J. emphasized the deference owed to judicial discretion, which necessarily leads to the varying outcomes in the Corbett framework (Hussein, <\/em>para 178). Accordingly, the trial judge did not err in his discretionary weighing of the prejudicial effect and probative value of Mr. Hussein\u2019s criminal record (Hussein, <\/em>paras 182\u2013185). Furthermore, Jamal J. disagreed with the majority\u2019s rejection of \u201ccontempt for the law\u201d reasoning for violent crimes (Hussein, <\/em>paras 167\u2013176). He also disagreed with the majority\u2019s rejection of the relevance of a Crown\u2019s case\u2019s strength (Hussein, <\/em>paras 179\u2013181, 189). Finally, he did not believe that Mr. Hussein\u2019s youth convictions should have been withheld from cross-examination (Hussein, <\/em>para 186).\u00a0<\/p>\n The SCC Chooses Justice La Forest’s Corbett<\/em> Framework<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Expanding on Professor Peter Sankoff’s arguments in Hussein<\/em>, I argue that the majority\u2019s decision in Hussein<\/em> aligns more closely with La Forest J.\u2019s dissent, rather than Dickson C.J.\u2019s (as he then was) majority opinion in Corbett<\/em>. While La Forest J.\u2019s proposals are generally confirmed or clarified in Hussein, <\/em>Dickson C.J.\u2019s determinations seem, in effect, to be rejected.<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n At issue in the original Corbett<\/em> case was whether the trial judge should have allowed cross-examination of the accused\u2019s earlier conviction of murder (Corbett, <\/em>para 4).\u00a0<\/p>\n First, La Forest J. dissented on the basis that the murder conviction was more prejudicial than probative and proposed that s. 12 of the CEA <\/em>allowed trial judges to exercise discretion in excluding past convictions (Corbett, <\/em>para 136). In contrast, Dickson C.J. limited this discretion to \u201cunusual circumstances\u201d (Corbett, <\/em>para 38). However, as outlined in the \u201cDecision\u201d section of this Comment, the SCC in Hussein <\/em>appears to adopt La Forest J.\u2019s approach, <\/em>emphasizing that \u201ctrial judges should not hesitate<\/em> to exercise their common law discretion to exclude convictions that do not have sufficient probative value\u201d (Hussein<\/em>, para 76 (emphasis added)).\u00a0<\/p>\n Second, La Forest J. proposed factors that a judge should assess when deciding whether to exclude a past conviction, where he suggested the nature, remoteness, similarity, and distortion factors used in Corbett applications (Corbett, <\/em>paras 153\u2013162). Dickson C.J. suggests that these factors are \u201ca useful catalogue\u201d but omits providing his own discretionary factors. But as noted above, the SCC in Hussein <\/em>generally affirms La Forest J.\u2019s discretionary factors while also clarifying the distortion factor and adding social context factors.\u00a0<\/p>\n Third, La Forest J. expressed serious doubts about the effectiveness of jury instructions in preventing prejudicial or improper propensity reasoning (Corbett, <\/em>paras 129\u2013130). In contrast, Dickson C.J. held that \u201cit would be quite wrong <\/em>to make too much of the risk that the jury might use the evidence for an improper purpose\u201d (Corbett<\/em>, para 39 (emphasis added)). As noted above, the SCC in Hussein<\/em> appears to side with La Forest J.\u2019s doubt, affirming appellate courts\u2019 reliance on R v Handy<\/em>, 2002 SCC 56<\/a> <\/em>[Handy<\/em>] to \u201cexpress doubt as to the jury\u2019s ability to use this evidence [viz. past convictions] in permissible ways\u201d (Hussein, <\/em>para 73).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n
\n