Basic Trial Procedure
Original article: July 2, 2020 | By Hans 'John' Kalina | Reviewed and updated October 6, 2026
A criminal trial determines whether the Crown has proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not the same as a bail hearing, a preliminary inquiry or a sentencing hearing. The details depend on the charge, the court and whether the trial is before a judge alone or a judge and jury.
The charge and plea
At arraignment, the charge is put to the accused and a plea is entered. A not-guilty plea puts the charge in issue for trial. A guilty plea follows a different route: the court must be satisfied that the conditions in section 606 of the Criminal Code are met before accepting it. A person should not plead guilty merely because they are uncertain about the process or want to avoid inconvenience.
The Crown’s evidence
The Crown presents its case first. Evidence may include witness testimony, documents, photographs, recordings and other properly admitted exhibits. Testimony is usually given under oath or affirmation, although special rules apply to some witnesses. The court determines what evidence is admissible; material appearing in police disclosure is not automatically trial evidence.
Lawyers’ questions, opening remarks and submissions are not themselves evidence. Witness answers and admitted exhibits are assessed under the applicable rules. Proceedings are recorded in accordance with court procedures; avoid assumptions about whether a hearing is in person, conducted using technology or video recorded.
Examination, cross-examination and re-examination
Examination-in-chief: the party calling the witness elicits their evidence. Questions on disputed matters are ordinarily non-leading, subject to exceptions and the court’s directions.
Cross-examination: the opposing party tests the evidence, including the witness’s opportunity to observe, memory, consistency, credibility and possible bias. Leading questions are generally permitted.
Re-examination: the party who called the witness may clarify matters arising on cross-examination. It is not an unrestricted opportunity to introduce a new case; leave may be needed to go beyond its proper scope.
The Superior Court’s guide to criminal proceedings explains these stages and objections. Questions must remain relevant and lawful. Cross-examination is not an invitation to argue with a witness, and important contradictory versions may need to be put fairly to the witness.
The defence case and the decision to testify
After the Crown closes its case, counsel considers whether an application for an acquittal is available and whether the defence should call evidence. The defence is not generally required to call witnesses, and the accused cannot be compelled to testify at their own trial. The Crown’s burden of proving guilt remains important throughout.
Whether the accused testifies is their decision after proper advice. Counsel should discuss what the evidence adds, the risks of cross-examination and the available alternatives. If the defence calls witnesses, they are normally subject to the same examination, cross-examination and re-examination process. Some defences or applications engage specific evidentiary rules or burdens, which require individual advice.
Closing submissions and the verdict
Once the evidence is complete, the parties make closing submissions based on the evidence and applicable law. This is not the time to supply new facts from the counsel table. The order of submissions depends on the proceedings and whether the defence called evidence. A judge may ask counsel questions; jurors do not question lawyers as if they were conducting the hearing.
In a judge-alone trial, the judge decides the facts and law and gives reasons. In a jury trial, the judge instructs the jury on the law, and the jury deliberates and returns its verdict; juries do not give reasons for that verdict in the way judges do. The verdict may differ from one count to another. R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40 explains the demanding reasonable-doubt standard: probable guilt is not enough, but proof to absolute certainty is not required.
Sentencing after a finding of guilt
If guilt is established, sentencing may occur that day or after an adjournment. The judge hears relevant evidence and submissions and applies the governing sentencing principles to the offence and the offender. Victim impact, the offender’s circumstances, rehabilitation and other legally relevant considerations can matter. R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 discusses sentencing principles and appellate review. See Sentencing Options After Conviction for the range of possible outcomes.
Appeals: check the route and deadline promptly
An appeal is a review for legally recognized grounds, not a new trial simply because a party dislikes the result. The available appeal court, need for leave and deadline depend on the type of proceeding and the decision. For a convicted person appealing conviction, sentence or both under the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s Criminal Appeal Rules, the ordinary filing period is 30 days after sentence is imposed. That should not be treated as a universal deadline for every criminal appeal. Obtain advice promptly about the applicable rule and any application to extend time.
Related guidance
For advice about your circumstances, contact our office. This article provides general information, not legal advice.