challenge [ challenge to a judge | challenge to a juror | challenge to a lay magistrate | challenge to an arbitrator | challenge to a referee | challenge to a witness | challenge to evidence | challenge to jurors | challenge to testimony | jury challenge | recusal of a judge | recusation of a judge ]

challenge a juror

challenging the array

de jure standard

lay magistrate [ juror | jury | justice of the peace | people's jury | jury(UNBIS) ]

recognition of a state [ de facto recognition | de jure recognition ]

The amendments also provide for changes to the process with respect to the challenge of jurors to, among other things, assist in preserving their impartiality, which again is very important; summary dismissal by a single judge of the court of appeal when an appeal has erroneously been filed with that court; an appeal of a superior court order with respect to things seized lying with the court of appeal; a summary conviction trial with respect to the co-accused that can proceed where one of the co-accused does not appear; and the reclassification of the offence of possession of break and enter instruments into a dual procedure offence ...[+++] to allow the Crown to determine whether this offence should be prosecuted by way of indictment or by the more expeditious procedure of summary conviction, which again could save hours of court time and allow for much faster determinations.

These technical changes include amendments to: expedite the execution of out of province search warrants by allowing the use of current technologies; harmonize and consolidate provisions dealing with proof of service of documents; identify the proper appeal route for judicial orders to return seized property; and finally, to improve the process with respect to the challenge of jurors to assist in preserving the jury's impartiality.

In addition, Bill C-23 adds a number of aspects that I find interesting, including the use of telecommunications to forward warrants to be executed in a different jurisdiction than the one where the search took place and changes to the process with respect to the challenge of jurors in order to help preserve their impartiality.

The Supreme Court decision now gives a lawyer the power to ask the court to remove a juror based on his or her racial preconceptions.