R v Lufiau, R v Varennes, and The Gamble of Litigating a “Right” to Jury Trials Outside of Section 11(f)

In light of recent events, changes to criminal law, and the advancement of social science, a renewed conversation on the right to select one’s mode of trial (or a right to a non-jury trial) under section 11(f) of the Charter is much needed. This paper aims to restart this conversation. To this end, the paper will briefly review the Lufiau and Varennes cases before discussing the risks of framing arguments on the “right” to a jury trial outside of section 11(f), like the parties did in these two cases. The last section of the paper will then expand on the drawbacks of the approach taken by the Supreme Court in R v Turpin, contrasting its argument with new social scientific studies and legal scholarship that challenge the impartiality and competence of juries.