
Mark Halfyard
Senior appellate criminal lawyer at Daniel Brown Law LLP in Toronto; Law Society of Ontario certified specialist with 20+ years of experience and 400+ Court of Appeal arguments.
1
APPEARANCES
1
PODCASTS
012
DEC 30
JAN 6
JAN 13
JAN 20
JAN 27
FEB 3
FEB 10
FEB 17
FEB 24
MAR 3
MAR 10
MAR 17
MAR 24
MAR 31
APR 7
APR 14
APR 21
APR 28
MAY 5
MAY 12
MAY 19
MAY 26
JUN 2
JUN 9
JUN 16
JUN 23
JUN 30
JUL 7
JUL 14
JUL 21
JUL 28
AUG 4
AUG 11
AUG 18
AUG 25
SEP 1
SEP 8
SEP 15
SEP 22
SEP 29
OCT 6
OCT 13
OCT 20
OCT 27
NOV 3
NOV 10
NOV 17
NOV 24
DEC 1
DEC 8
DEC 15
DEC 22
DEC 29
JAN 5
JAN 12
JAN 19
JAN 26
FEB 2
FEB 9
FEB 16
FEB 23
MAR 2
MAR 9
MAR 16
MAR 23
MAR 30
APR 6
APR 13
APR 20
APR 27
MAY 4
MAY 11
MAY 18
MAY 25
JUN 1
JUN 8
JUN 15
JUN 22
JUN 29
JUL 6
JUL 13
JUL 20
JUL 27
AUG 3
AUG 10
AUG 17
AUG 24
AUG 31
SEP 7
SEP 14
SEP 21
SEP 28
Jun 30, 2026
Jordan Bilinski v. His Majesty the King (42030)
173:32
173:40
177:13
R
173:16Richard WagnerMODERATOR
Mark Alfjords.

Mark HalfyardGUEST
The first is that there is no clear intent by Parliament to make sexual assault an objective-based mens rea offence.

Mark HalfyardGUEST
In other words, the independent pathway conversation that was the thread of a number of questions today, for simply that would lead to a conviction for failing to take reasonable steps should be rejected.

Sheilah MartinPANELIST
ask you this question in terms of if the subjective approach to mens rea is the one that governs if the Crown must always prove subjective mens rea and 273.2 has not been raised by the Defence? Is the jury to be charged that the Crown must prove mens rea, but you cannot have a belief in the accused's belief, or you can't decide on the basis of self-induced intoxication? Is that now become a necessary part of the jury charge?