A criminal trial in Ontario is shaped by a set of fundamental rights designed to ensure the process is fair. This guide focuses specifically on those trial-stage rights. For a broader explanation of how a trial proceeds, see our guide to how criminal trials work in Ontario. This page is general information only and does not replace legal advice about a specific trial.
The Presumption of Innocence
Every person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent unless and until the Crown proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Our guide to how criminal trials work explains this principle and the burden of proof in more detail. This presumption applies throughout the entire trial, from the moment it begins until a verdict is reached.
This means an accused person walks into their trial owing the court nothing in terms of proof. The Crown must build its case entirely through the evidence it presents, and the defence is never required to disprove the allegation. This foundational principle shapes almost every other right discussed on this page.
The Right to Be Informed of the Charges
An accused person generally has the right to be informed, without unreasonable delay, of the specific charge or charges they face, in enough detail to understand and respond to the allegation. This right generally applies from the earliest stages of a case, well before trial, but it remains foundational to how the trial itself unfolds, since a trial is fundamentally organized around the specific charges the Crown must prove.
The Right to a Fair and Public Trial
An accused person generally has the right to a fair trial, conducted in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and, subject to specific limited exceptions, a public trial. Openness is generally considered an important safeguard, allowing the public and media to observe how justice is administered, which in turn helps maintain confidence in the fairness of the system.
Fairness in this context covers many dimensions, including an impartial judge or jury, a meaningful opportunity to respond to the Crown's case, and a process free from improper external influence. If something about a trial seems to compromise this fairness, such as evident bias or an inability to properly present a defence, that is an issue a lawyer can raise directly with the court.
The Right to Be Tried Within a Reasonable Time
Canadian law recognizes the right to be tried within a reasonable time, reflecting the principle that criminal charges should not hang over a person indefinitely. Whether a specific delay is unreasonable is a detailed legal question that depends on the length of the delay, the reasons for it, and the impact on the accused person, among other factors. A lawyer can assess whether delay in a specific case may raise this kind of issue.
Not every delay is unreasonable, and this is a technical area of law. If a case has taken a long time to reach trial, a lawyer can assess the specific timeline against the relevant legal framework.
The Right to Full Answer and Defence
An accused person generally has the right to make full answer and defence to the charges against them, which includes the right to know the case they must meet, through disclosure, and the right to challenge the Crown's evidence and present their own evidence and legal arguments. Our guide to what is criminal disclosure explains an important foundation for this right.
This right also generally includes the ability to call defence witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence supporting the defence position, and to make legal arguments about how the law should apply to the facts of the case. Without meaningful disclosure and a genuine opportunity to prepare, this right would be largely theoretical, which is part of why disclosure obligations are taken so seriously.
Rights Regarding Improperly Obtained Evidence
If evidence in a case was obtained in a way that violated an accused person's Charter rights, such as through an unlawful search or a statement obtained without respecting the right to counsel, Canadian law provides a process for challenging whether that evidence should be used at trial. Our guides to police searches and statements to police discuss some of these underlying protections in more detail.
This kind of challenge generally happens through a specific pretrial or mid-trial application, where the court hears evidence about how the disputed evidence was obtained before deciding whether it should be considered as part of the trial. Whether a specific challenge is likely to succeed depends heavily on the facts, and is a matter for a lawyer to assess in detail.
The Right Not to Testify
An accused person has the right not to testify at their own trial, and choosing not to testify cannot be used as evidence of guilt. Our detailed guide to the right to remain silent explains this protection and how it continues through to the trial stage.
The Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses
An accused person generally has the right, through their lawyer, to cross-examine witnesses called by the Crown, testing their evidence and challenging its reliability. This right is a core part of the adversarial trial process and an important tool for ensuring that only reliable evidence is given weight in reaching a verdict.
Effective cross-examination generally requires careful preparation, including a thorough review of disclosure and an understanding of how each witness's evidence fits into the broader case. This is one of the reasons skilled legal representation matters so much at trial, since the way cross-examination is conducted can meaningfully affect how the evidence is ultimately assessed.
The Right to an Interpreter
A party or witness who does not understand or speak the language of the proceedings generally has the right to the assistance of an interpreter, ensuring meaningful participation in the trial regardless of language. This right applies throughout the trial, not only during specific stages, and extends to accused persons and witnesses alike.
Interpretation at trial is generally expected to be accurate and continuous, covering the entirety of the proceeding relevant to the person needing it, not just summarized or partial translation. If interpretation during a trial seemed inadequate or incomplete, that is a serious concern worth raising promptly with a lawyer, since meaningful participation in one's own trial is closely tied to overall trial fairness.
The Right to Counsel Throughout Trial
The general right to counsel, discussed in our guide to the right to speak with a lawyer, continues throughout the trial process, not only at the point of arrest or detention. An accused person generally has the right to be represented by a lawyer of their choosing at trial, or to seek assistance through Legal Aid Ontario or duty counsel where eligible.
Having consistent legal representation throughout a case, rather than switching lawyers repeatedly or going without representation for periods of time, generally supports a more coherent and effective defence, since a lawyer familiar with the full history of a case is typically better positioned to represent a client's interests at trial.
Rights of Self-Represented Accused Persons
An accused person generally has the right to represent themselves at trial rather than retaining a lawyer, though this is rarely advisable given the complexity of criminal proceedings. Courts generally provide some degree of accommodation to self-represented individuals to help them understand the process, without abandoning the court's role as a neutral decision-maker.
Anyone considering self-representation should understand that judges and court staff generally cannot provide legal advice or advocate on a self-represented person's behalf. Speaking with duty counsel or a lawyer, even briefly, before deciding to proceed without representation is generally a wise step, given how much is often at stake in a criminal trial.
The Right to a Jury Trial, Where Available
For certain offences, an accused person generally has the right to elect a trial by jury rather than a trial by judge alone. Our guide to how criminal trials work explains the general distinction between judge-alone and jury trials. Whether a jury trial is available for a specific charge, and whether it is a strategic choice worth making, are questions for a lawyer to address based on the specific case.
The choice between a judge-alone and jury trial, where available, is generally significant and made relatively early in a case, since it can affect scheduling, the general nature of legal arguments made, and how a case is ultimately presented. This decision benefits from careful discussion with a lawyer who understands the specific strengths and weaknesses of the case.
The Right to Be Present at Trial
An accused person generally has the right to be present throughout their own trial, reflecting the importance of being able to see and hear the evidence and instruct counsel as the trial unfolds. There are narrow, specific circumstances where a trial may proceed without the accused present, but this is the exception rather than the general rule.
Being present allows an accused person to react to testimony as it happens, provide real-time input to their lawyer, and generally stay fully engaged in decisions that affect their own case. Missing a trial date without a lawful excuse is a serious matter, similar to missing other court appearances discussed in our guide to first court appearances.
The Open Court Principle and Its Limits
Canadian courts generally operate under an open court principle, meaning proceedings are open to the public and media absent a specific reason to restrict access. This principle can be limited in specific circumstances, such as publication bans protecting the identity of certain witnesses or complainants, discussed in our page for victims and witnesses. These limits are meant to balance openness against other important interests, rather than to undermine the general presumption of an open, public process.
For an accused person, the open court principle can feel like a double-edged consideration: it is an important safeguard against unfair or hidden proceedings, but it also means a criminal charge, even one that is later withdrawn or results in an acquittal, can become a matter of public record. Understanding this general reality is part of understanding the broader trial process, even though it does not change the underlying importance of the principle itself.
The Right to Appeal
If a trial results in a conviction, an accused person generally has the right to appeal, subject to specific legal requirements and time limits. An appeal is not a new trial; it generally involves a higher court reviewing whether the original trial was conducted properly and whether the verdict was legally sound. A lawyer can advise on whether an appeal is realistic in a specific case and on the applicable time limits, which are important to observe closely.
Because appeal timelines are generally short and strictly enforced, anyone considering an appeal should speak with a lawyer as soon as possible after a conviction, rather than waiting to see how sentencing unfolds or taking time to decide. Missing an appeal deadline can foreclose this option entirely, which is why prompt action matters so much at this stage.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I have to attend every day of my own trial?
Generally, yes, an accused person has the right, and is generally expected, to be present throughout their trial, with narrow exceptions.
Can I get an interpreter if I don't speak English or French well?
Yes, generally. The right to an interpreter exists to ensure meaningful participation in the trial regardless of language.
Is every criminal trial open to the public?
Generally, yes, under the open court principle, though specific limits such as publication bans can apply in certain circumstances.
What happens if my trial has been delayed for a long time?
A lawyer can assess whether the delay may raise a legal issue connected to the right to be tried within a reasonable time, which depends on the specific circumstances.
Can I appeal if I am found guilty at trial?
Generally, yes, subject to specific legal requirements and time limits. A lawyer can advise on whether an appeal is realistic in a specific case.
Can evidence be excluded if it was obtained improperly?
In some circumstances, yes, if a lawyer successfully argues it was obtained in violation of Charter rights. Whether this applies depends on the specific facts of the case.
Can I represent myself at trial instead of hiring a lawyer?
Generally, yes, but this is rarely advisable given the complexity of criminal trials. Speaking with duty counsel or a lawyer before deciding is generally a wise step.