Mr. MacIsaac waswas charged with aggravated assault on July 11, 2012, and he proceed with an election for a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice and was convicted on December 16, 2013. On August 31, 2015, the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial. The accused’s counsel was served with a summons for the re-trial on November 30, 2015. On February 3, 2016,a ten (10) day re-trial was scheduled to run from February 6 to 17, 2017. On August 25, 2016, the accused applied for a stay under s.11(b). The application was denied on October 26, 2016 and the re-trial went ahead as scheduled. The trial judge reserved her decision following the last day of trial, which was February 16, 2017.On April 18, 2017, the trial judge released her judgment finding the accused guilty of aggravated assault.
The Ontario Court of Appeal court noted that the case was argued on the assumption that the eighteen (18) month presumptive ceiling established in Regina v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631applied to the re-trial. The court stated that it would deal with the appeal on that basis. The court commented, however:
[27] In my view, the 18-month presumptive ceiling established for a first trial is too long in the circumstances of a re-trial. Re-trials must receive priority in the system, and in the normal course re-trials in the Ontario Court of Justice should occur well before Jordan’s 18-month presumptive ceiling. It may be that a lower presumptive ceiling is appropriate for re-trials.
[28] We heard no argument on this point and it would not be appropriate to say anything more in the context of this case. This case was argued on the assumption that the 18-month presumptive ceiling applies, and I propose to deal with it on this basis. However, the Jordan criteria must be understood in the context of the Crown’s duty to re-try cases as soon as possible.
[29] I begin by reviewing the considerations raised by the parties concerning the calculation of delay. I conclude that the delay in this case either exceeds the presumptive 18-month ceiling or is unreasonable in any event. In either case, the appeal must be allowed and a stay must be granted.
What is more, the court also addressed the issue of when the clock starts for the purposes of a delay analysis in the case of a re-trial. The court held that the time for assessing delay runs from the date the appellate court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial. Accordingly, the clock started running on August 31, 2015.
In terms of determine when the proverbial clock ceases to run, the court averred that the end date for calculating total delay was either April 18, 2017, which is when the judgement was rendered or February 17, 2017, which again, was the last day of trial. However, given that the factual foundation was not before it, the court stated that it was unnecessary to resolve the issue of whether the time a judgment is under reserve is included in the calculation of total delay. This was because the net delay in the case was unreasonable under either of the above scenarios: (a) First, under the initial scenario, in which reserve time is included, the net delay was over 19 months and exceeded the presumptive ceiling. The Crown had not established the presence of exceptional circumstances that rebut the presumption of unreasonableness. Accordingly, the delay was unreasonable; Second, (b) under the second scenario, in which the time under reserve is not included in the calculation of delay, the net delay was over seventeen (17) months. Although this net delay was below the presumptive ceiling, the defence had met its burden of showing that the delay was unreasonable.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence, it is important to ensure that sufficient and accurate representations are made on the Court record to ensure that your efforts to proceed in a diligent matter are noted despite the tests outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada inRegina v. Jordan. The common-law rules, as stated in this case, provides an example that depending on the facts of each case, may be useful in persuading the Crown or the Justice applies to your case.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence, contact Mr. J. S. Patel, Barrister for a free initial consultation regarding your matter.
Informer Privilege, Innocence at Stake, Police Obligations
Pre-trial disclosure applications to secure information from confidential informants has been heavily considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in previous cases (i.e. Regina v. Barros, 2011 SCC 51). This case, however, involves an academically interesting question of criminal law. It was eloquently framed in the following manner by the Supreme Court of Canada today in the Reginav. Brassington, 2018 SCC 37, decision that was released by the Court:
When police officers are charged with crimes relating to their conduct during an investigation, can they, at their own discretion, disclose to their defence lawyers information they learned during that investigation that might reveal the identity of a confidential informer?
In very general terms, the the police informer privilege is the common law rule of evidence to the effect that a Crown witness suspected of being, or known to be, a police informer cannot be questioned as to whether or not he is one. Nor can another witness be asked questions which would disclose the identity of a police informer : A.-G. v. Briant(1846), 15 M.&W. 169, 153 E.R. 808, 15 L.J. Ex. 265, cited in Reginav. Blain (1960), 33 C.R. 217 at 219, 127 C.C.C. 267 (Sask.C.A.), also cited in Solicitor-General of Canadav. Royal Commission Re Health Records(1981), 62 C.C.C. (2d) 193 at 219, 23 C.R.(3d) 338 (S.C.C.).
In this case, four (4) police officers were charged with crimes relating to alleged misconduct during a police investigation. This criminal matter arose from the “Surrey Six” investigation, a complex RCMP investigation into a gang-related homicide. According to the Crown, about eighty (80) confidential informers were involved in the investigation.
Prior to their trial, those police officer-defendants applied for a declaration that they could discuss information they learned during the investigation with their defence counsel that might reveal the identity of confidential informers. The assigned case management judge granted the application, declaring that the officers could discuss any information in their possession with counsel. The Crown and the RCMP then brought proceedings to determine whether the communications authorized under the declaratory order constituted “disclosures” within the meaning of s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act . Pursuant to s. 37(1) of the Act, the Crown may object to disclosures on public interest grounds. Section 37.1 of the Act provides a special right of appeal from a determination of an objection. Sections 37 and 37.1 apply to criminal proceedings and other matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction. The case management judge found that she had jurisdiction to hear the Crown’s objection but dismissed it. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the rejection of the s. 37 objection. It characterized the order allowing disclosure as civil rather than criminal in nature, held that an appeal under s. 37.1 was unavailable and held that the Crown could not object to the declaratory order under s. 37 . The case management judge’s declaratory order and the Court of Appeal’s decision were appealed to the Court.
The Supreme Court of Canada granted the Crown and order that the declaratory order should be set aside. An order should be granted pursuant to s. 37(6) of the Canada Evidence Act prohibiting the officers from disclosing informer‑privileged information to their counsel, subject to a successful innocence at stake application. The SCC ruled that the case management judge had jurisdiction to hear the Crown’s objection to the declaratory order under s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act and an appeal to the Court of Appeal under s. 37.1 was therefore proper. The declaratory order was criminal in nature and therefore within Parliament’s constitutional authority. In determining whether an order is civil or criminal in nature, what is relevant is not the formal title or styling of the order, but its substance and purpose. Here, the order related to the accused’s claim that declaratory relief was necessary to help them make full answer and defence in ongoing criminal proceedings, and it was issued by a criminal case management judge in connection with the rights of the parties in a pending criminal proceeding, regarding what might be done by the accused in conducting their defence. The fact that it was declaratory does not change its essential character.
Furthermore, s. 37 was the proper route for challenging the order, as it authorized a form of disclosure to which the Crown was entitled to object on public interest grounds. The interconnected purposes of ss. 37 and 37.1 are to give the Crown the ability to object to disclosures on public interest grounds, and to grant an interlocutory right of appeal where it is unsuccessful. They provide a valuable tool for the Crown to protect against disclosure of confidential and privileged information, and reflect the fact that the Crown’s ability to object to disclosures on public interest grounds was not meant to be restricted to those circumstances where the disclosure is compulsory and will occur in open court. Disclosures may be equally harmful to the public interest whether they are made in or outside of court, and whether they are made under compulsion or voluntarily.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in this case that the officers are not entitled to disclose the informer‑privileged information to their lawyers. This is because the current jurisprudence prevents piercing informer privilege unless the accused can show that his or her innocence is at stake. As such, there is no basis for departing from that rule when the accused is a police officer. Informer privilege arises in circumstances where police receive information under a promise of confidentiality. Informers are entitled to rely on that promise. What is more, the informer privilege rule is a common law rule of long standing and it is fundamentally important to the criminal justice system. Subject to the innocence at stake exception, the privilege acts as a complete bar on the disclosure of the informer’s identity, and the police, the Crown and the courts are bound to uphold it. In order to pierce informer privilege — the innocence at stake test — is, accordingly, onerous; and that privilege should be infringed only where core issues going to the guilt of the accused are involved and there is a genuine risk of a wrongful conviction. In this case, the defence counsel or their the officers (defedants) in this case did not argue that any privileged information in their possession meets the innocence at stake test. Nor did they suggest any information relating to confidential informers was genuinely relevant to their defence.
Furthermore, as previously confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, defence counsel are outside the circle of informer privilege, that is, the group of people who are entitled to access information covered by informer privilege. In all cases where informer privilege applies, disclosure outside the circle requires a showing of innocence at stake. Limitations placed on what the police officers can say to their lawyers do not create conflicting legal and professional duties; rather, they align with the officers’ professional duties and allow their lawyers to proceed without fear of inadvertently revealing the privileged information their clients possess. The law may require officers to exercise some degree of caution with respect to what they disclose, but that expectation does not meaningfully interfere with their relationship with counsel. The primary purpose of the right to free solicitor‑client communication in a criminal proceeding is to permit the accused and counsel to discuss issues that go to full answer and defence — “solicitor‑client communication” does not have some independent, intrinsic value over and above its relationship to full answer and defence. Like any other criminal defendant, if it becomes clear that the police officers are at genuine risk of conviction, and that this information needs to be disclosed, they can bring a Regina. v.McClure, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445 . application. The application in this case was not brought under the ordinary McClure process, nor was it adjudicated under McClureprinciples. Instead, the accused sought a pre-trial remedy of declaratory relief, relating not to the scope of privilege, but rather to who is entitled to access information that everyone agrees is within the scope. In such cases, Access to the information will be given only where an accused demonstrates “innocence at stake”,as explained later in these reasons.
Police officers are, when accused of crimes, entitled to expect that they will be treated no less fairly than others who are accused and given the full protection of the law. What they are not entitled to expect is that they will be treated better. There is no reason to advantage police officers who, by virtue of their positions of trust, have information that has been confided to them for safekeeping. It is not their information to exploit for personal juridical gain.
Mr. J.S. Patel is a criminal defence lawyer that assumes conduct of all criminal trial and appeal matters. If you have been charged with a criminal offence, please feel free to call 403-585-1960 for a free initial consultation.
Right to Counsel and the Admissibility of Statements of Young Offenders in Canada
When the police are interacting with minors the common-law rules of voluntariness and counsel differ relative to adults. The initial stages of the investigation are critical and it is imperative that you understand your rights relative to a police investigation at the outset. In Reginav. N.B., 2018 ONCA 556, the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside a conviction for first degree murder that was allegedly committed by a 16-year-old. The police took incriminating statements from him in violation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
The factual basis of the allegations involved the accused allegedly brought a group of people to the body of the deceased, his cousin, and the police were contacted. The young accused was in a highly agitated state; was handcuffed; and placed in a locked police car after pushing a police officer. The police later took him to the police station, and placed in an interview room. He was told (erroneously) by the police that he was not under arrest and did not need his rights read to him. The police then interviewed him, confronting him for changing his version of events and telling him (falsely) that they had incriminating video from a surveillance camera.
At trial, the Crown Prosecutor, fairly conceded that the police breached the accused’s right to counsel and ss.25(2) and 146 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act\ (which govern the taking of statements). The trial judge admitted the accused’s statements, holding the accused had been only a witness in the murder investigation, even if arrested and detained for breaching the peace or obstructing police.
The court held that the trial judge had improperly shifted the burden to the defence to show the accused was psychologically detained. The burden should have been on the Crown regarding both the detention and whether the statutory preconditions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for the admissibility of his statements had been met. When the proper onus was applied, a reasonable person would conclude the accused had believed he was not free to leave the interview room without speaking to the officers. The Court stated the following in relevant part:
[103] The trial judge’s discussion of burden of proof was confusing – at times he seemed to place the onus on the Crown, and at other times on the appellant. I have concluded that the trial judge held that the appellant failed to meet his burden that he was psychologically detained on a balance of probabilities.
[104] At p. 2 of his ruling, the trial judge first noted that the burden of proof with respect to proving the voluntariness of the statements lay with the Crown and the standard was beyond a reasonable doubt. He then stated that the burden of proof of compliance with s. 146 of the YCJA lay with the Crown, also to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The onus of proof of a breach of s. 10(b) of the Charter lay with the appellant, on a balance of probabilities. So far, so good.
[105] Then, at p. 20 of his ruling, the trial judge stated:
After his arrest at the scene for obstruct police and his transport to the police station for the conduct of an interview until 1:59 a.m. on March 10, 2006, [N.B.] was in effect detained. Until 1:59 a.m. on March 10, 2006, at which time [N.B.] was arrested for first degree murder, no officer advised him of his rights under s. 25(2) of the YCJA or of any of his Charter rights or had the requirements of s. 146 of the YCJA been implemented.
[106] The trial judge considered voluntariness, and found the appellant’s statements and utterances to be voluntary.
[107] Next, he concluded that the appellant had been neither detained nor arrested for the offense he was charged with – first degree murder – prior to 1:59 a.m. on March 10, 2006. At p. 35, the trial judge accepted the evidence offered by way of agreed facts and viva voce evidence of Detective Constables Brooks and Parcells that neither they nor any other police officer had reasonable grounds to consider the appellant a suspect at the time the statements were made. He was satisfied that before the appellant was transferred from the scene to the police station, “the decision was made that he was not under arrest and the removal of the handcuffs by Sergeant [Berriault] was corroborative of that fact, but that [N.B.] was clearly being viewed and treated as a witness only”: p. 36.
[108] Having dealt with the issues of reasonable grounds and arrest, he then turned to whether the appellant had been detained prior to his arrest. He stated at p. 39:
In this case, [the appellant] bears the responsibility of establishing on a balance of probabilities that he was psychologically detained.
[109] As mentioned, this was an error. As I have explained, the
burden to show that he was detained never shifted from the Crown to the appellant. Reading his reasons as a whole, it appears that the trial judge was aware that, if any of the three preconditions to s. 146(2) were met, the burden was on the Crown to establish implementation of the protections beyond a reasonable doubt. However, he failed to appreciate that the burden was also on the Crown to prove the absence of the preconditions beyond a reasonable doubt.
The trial judge also erred by holding that s.146 only applied where the accused is detained or arrested for the offence about which the police were questioning him or her. The statutory protections apply even if the accused has been detained or arrested for an unrelated offence. The court held these were not technical irregularities and thus the statements could not be admitted under ss.146(6).
If you have been charged with a criminal offence and you fall within the Youth Criminal Justice Act., call Mr. J.S. Patel, Criminal Lawyer in Calgary or Toronto at 403-585-1960.
Assault Assault Trials, Criminal Defence Lawyers for Sexual Assault Charges.
Evidence of sexual activity between a complainant and another person may be admitted if it is not tendered for a purpose prohibited by s.276(1) of the Criminal Code and it satisfies the admissibility test under s.276(2).The basic principles governing the application of s.276 were reviewed in Regina v. T.(M.), 2012 ONCA 511, per Watt J.A., on behalf of the court (at paras. 29-43):
The Governing Principles
Section 276 of the Criminal Codecreates a statutory rule of admissibility.Enacted in negative terms, the section, like other admissibility rules, is exclusionary; it precludes the admission of certain evidence. The exclusionary effect of the rule only becomes engaged when three requirements have been met. For
discussion purposes, these requirements, which are cumulative, may be characterized as:
i.offence charged;
ii.subject-matter; and
iii. purpose.
The exclusionary rule prohibits the person charged from introducing certain evidence (subject-matter) for a specific use (purpose) in proceedings for a listed crime (offence).
The “offence” requirement is satisfied where the proceedings in which evidence is tendered relate to a listed offence.Among the listed offences are the crimes charged here: sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching.
The “subject-matter” requirement, which appears in both sections 276(1) and (2), is best expressed in the language of subsection (2):
Evidence … that the complainant has engaged in sexual activity other than the sexual activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge, whether with the accused or with any other person.
If the subject-matter of the proposed evidence falls outside the statutory language, the exclusionary terms of the provision do not apply.On the other hand, satisfaction of the subject-matter requirement, on its own, will not necessitate exclusion; the “purpose” requirement must also be satisfied.
The “purpose” requirement is crucial to the operation of this exclusionary rule, just as it is with the common law hearsay rule. To engage the exclusionary rule of s. 276, the proposed evidence must be offered to support either of two prohibited inferences grounded on the sexual nature of the activity:
i. that the complainant is more likely to have consented to the conduct charged; or
ii.that the complainant is less worthy of belief.
Where the purpose underlying the introduction of the evidence of extrinsic sexual activity is neither of those prohibited by s. 276(1), this exclusionary rule is not engaged.
Section 276(2) provides an exception to the exclusionary rule. To gain entry under this exception, evidence of the complainant’s extrinsic sexual activity must:
i.be of specific instances of sexual activity;
ii. be relevant to an issue at trial; and
iii. have significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.
To determine whether the evidence should be admitted under this exception, the presiding judge must follow the procedure described in ss. 276.1 and 276.2 and consider the factors listed in s. 276(3).
The admissibility rules of s. 276 apply only where the evidence proposed for admission is of extrinsic sexual activity on the part of the complainant. A previous allegation of assault, without more, would fall outside the section: R. v. Gervais1990 CanLII 3701 (QC CA), (1990), 58 C.C.C. (3d) 141 (Que. C.A.), at p. 154. Questions that focus on the fact, rather than the details, of an allegation of sexual assault are not prohibited by the section: R. v. M. (A.G.)(1993), 26 C.R. (4th) 379 (Que. C.A.), at p. 393.
To be receivable in a criminal trial each piece of evidence must satisfy three requirements:
• relevance
•materiality
•admissibility.
These requirements are cumulative. Evidence that comes up short on any requirement is excluded from consideration by the trier of fact.
Thus, Section 276 of the Criminal Code permits cross-examination of sexual offence complainants on prior sexual activity only in certain circumstances. In ReginavR.V.,2018 ONCA 547 (CanLII),the Ontario Court of Appeal held that s.276 does not require that the defence particularize specific instances of alleged prior sexual activity. Rather the defence lawyer is only required to demonstrate that the prior sexual activity be “adequately identified”; and tied to a proper purpose. The court ordered a new trial for sexual assault where the defence was wrongly prevented from cross-examining the complainant on her prior sexual activity.
In that case, the Crown at trial had argued that the fifteen (15) year-old complainant’s pregnancy was consistent with her allegations. This implied that only the accused could be the father. The application judge dismissed the defence’s application under s.276 to cross-examine the complainant on whether this was true. The Court of Appeal held that “the Crown’s position amounted to this: we say you are the only one who could have impregnated the complainant but you are not allowed to question her about whether this is true” (at para. 27). This, the Court of Appeal found, was “patently unfair.”
The Ontario Court of Appeal held that although there was no “fixed rule” that required granting the s.276 application, the application judge erred by requiring the defence to articulate particularized “specific instances of sexual activity.” The sexual activity was adequately identified as any activity that could have caused the pregnancy. The court’s focus should be on the probative value of the line of questioning, not on the likelihood that the cross-examination will produce results. It was no substitute to permit the defence to simply ask the complainant whether she was telling the truth; the point of cross-examination is to challenge the witness’s answers.
The court also held the trial judge, who replaced the application judge before trial, erred by holding he lacked jurisdiction to revisit the application judge’s s.276 application. A trial judge always has jurisdiction to revisit prior rulings in the same trial, and this is also true where the trial judge has replaced another judge.
Being charged with a serious, violent crime like sexual assault, may call for the assistance of an Criminal Defence lawyer in Alberta or other provinces in Canada. A lawyer will review all the evidence about the alleged sexual assault; and advise his or her client on how best to fight any charges. If the accused was not taken into custody according to the letter of the law, a lawyer might be able to have the charges dropped. An accused client has the right to mount an aggressive defense with the knowledge that it is incumbent upon the Crown to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you have been charged with a sexual assault offence under the Criminal Code of Canada, contact Mr. J.S. Patel, Calgary Criminal Lawyer for an initial free consultation at 403-585-1960.
Defence in mistaken belief in consent for sexual assault
In Reginav. Donnelly, 2018 ONCA 575 (CanLII), the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the accused’s conviction for sexual assault and ordered a new trial. In this case, the complainant was a woman who had been forced into the sex trade. This complainant had testified that she went along with oral and protected vaginal sex, but that during intercourse, the accused performed certain acts, and removed his condom and continued vaginal intercourse without her consent. According to the complainant, during the sexual intercourse the appellant pulled a strap-on out of his drawer and asked if they could use it. The complainant said that she told the appellant no but he proceeded to penetrate her with it. Further she testified that the appellant removed his condom and continued vaginal intercourse, despite the fact that she had told him to keep the condom on.
The accused/appellant flatly denied these allegations. In his testimony, the appellant admitted to the oral and protected vaginal sex, but denied that they had sex without a condom or that he used a strap-on. He also denied ejaculating into the complainant’s vagina but testified that he ejaculated onto her face with her permission. Typically, such evidence would warrant the application of the use of the legal test in Regina v. W(d), [1991] 1 SCR 742, 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC) where ideally, the appropriate instructions on the issue of credibility should be given, not only during the main charge, but on any recharge. A trial judge might well instruct the jury on the question of credibility along these lines:
First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.
Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.
Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.
On appeal, the accused argued that the trial judge erred by placing the defence of honest but mistaken belief to the jury, since it was entirely inconsistent with his testimony denying that the acts in question took place. The court of appeal agreed with that argument because there was “no air of reality” to that defence. An “air of reality” was defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, in the following way in Reginav. Cinous, [2002] 2 SCR 3, 2002 SCC 29(CanLII):
“A defence should be put to a jury if, and only if, there is an evidential foundation for it. A trial judge must thus put to the jury all defences that arise on the facts, whether or not they have been specifically raised by an accused, but he has a positive duty to keep from the jury defences lacking an evidential foundation — or air of reality. This is so even if the defence is the only defence open to the accused. The air of reality test imposes a burden on the accused that is merely evidential, rather than persuasive. In applying the air of reality test, a trial judge considers the totality of the evidence, and assumes the evidence relied upon by the accused to be true. The threshold determination by the trial judge is not aimed at deciding the substantive merits of the defence. That question is reserved for the jury. The trial judge does not make determinations about the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence, make findings of fact, or draw determinate factual inferences. Nor is the air of reality test intended to assess whether the defence is likely to succeed at the end of the day. The question for the trial judge is whether the evidence discloses a real issue to be decided by the jury, and not how the jury should ultimately decide the issue.”
Furthermore, the manner in which it was put to the jury obscured the accused’s actual defence and position on what happened. The trial judge misstated the accused’s position by telling the jury that the accused honestly believed that the complainant had consented to the acts in question when he clearly testified that the acts did not take place. The charge would only serve to confuse the jury and a new trial was needed.
Being charged with a serious, violent crime like sexual assault, may call for the assistance of an Criminal Defence lawyer in Alberta or other provinces in Canada. A lawyer will review all the evidence about the alleged sexual assault; and advise his or her client on how best to fight any charges. If the accused was not taken into custody according to the letter of the law, a lawyer might be able to have the charges dropped. An accused client has the right to mount an aggressive defense with the knowledge that it is incumbent upon the Crown to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you have been charged with a sexual assault offence under the Criminal Code of Canada, contact Mr. J.S. Patel, Calgary Criminal Lawyer for an initial free consultation at 403-585-1960.
Aiding and abetting, murder charges and its application in a jury trial.
The legal concept of “aiding and betting” in the context of Criminal Law has presented some difficulties in its application in a number of cases throughout Canada. This criminal law concept applies to varying degrees depending on the nature of the charge under the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Code”). Only occasional mention is made of the alternative basis for finding someone to be a party, the so-called common purpose provision in s.21(2). Subsection 21(1) of the Code provides as follows:
Every one is a party to an offence who(a) actually commits it,(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding an any person to commit it, or(c) abets any person in committing it.
In very general terms, while it is common to speak of the concept of aiding and abetting as a singular concept, these two conceptstogether, the two concepts are distinct, and liability can flow from either one. Broadly speaking, to aid under s.21(1)(b) of the Criminal Codemeans to assist or help the actor. To abet within the meaning of s.21(1)(c) includes encouraging, instigating, promoting, or procuring the crime to be committed: Regina v. Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13, at para. 14. :
[14] The actus reus of aiding or abetting is doing (or, in some circumstances, omitting to do) something that assists or encourages the perpetrator to commit the offence. While it is common to speak of aiding and abetting together, the two concepts are distinct, and liability can flow from either one. Broadly speaking, “[t]o aid under s. 21(1)(b) means to assist or help the actor. . . . To abet within the meaning of s. 21(1)(c) includes encouraging, instigating, promoting or procuring the crime to be committed”: Regina v. Greyeyes, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 825, at para. 26. The actus reus is not at issue in this appeal. As noted earlier, the Crown argued at trial that Mr. Briscoe was both an aider and an abettor. The trial judge’s finding that Mr. Briscoe performed the four acts of assistance described above is not disputed.
Under the most applicable concepts of criminal law (at the time of writing), it is irrelevant whether an accused personally committed a crime or aided/abetted the offence, which is why the Crown need not specify in an indictment the exact role the accused played in the offence: Reginav. Pickton, 2010 SCC 32. Thus, in Regina v. McKay, 2012 ABCA 310, even though aiding and abetting are distinct concepts, there was no error in the trial judge’s characterization that the accused did “aid and abet” the commission of the offence. This was simply the judge’s way of describing the accused as a party to the offence. The following are two (2) recent examples of how these concepts come to fruition in Criminal law.
Recently, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Regina v. Mendez, 2018 ONCA 354, the Court set aside jury convictions for first degree murder against the two (2) accused and ordered a new trial. The deceased was shot by one (1) person, and the Crown Prosecution’s theory was that the two (2) accused acted as parties. However, it was unclear who had actually shot the deceased. The trial judge’s instructions to the jury on planning and deliberation listed the evidence supporting the Crown’s theory, but left out the evidence supporting the defence position that there was insufficient evidence that the non-shooter had aided or abetted the shooter. The instructions also failed to relate the evidence to the elements of aiding and abetting but merely invited the jury to consider whether the two accused “acted jointly.”The Crown’s case was weak on the aiding or abetting of the non-shooter, but the jury was not equipped by the trial judge’s instructions to consider the weaknesses.
The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the accused persons’ post-offence conduct — changing clothes, flight, and providing a false alibi — had little probative value regarding the non-shooter’s role. Despite the risk of the jury’s misuse of this evidence and the weakness of the Crown’s case on aiding and abetting, the verdict was not unreasonable and the court did not enter an acquittal. However, a new trial was ordered..
In Reginav. Zoldi, 2018 ONCA 384, the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the accused’s appeal against his conviction for second degree murder and ordered a new trial on second degree murder. The Crown did not appeal the accused’s acquittal with respect to first degree murder.
The basis of granting the appeal was due to the fact that the jury was misdirected on the required state of mind for an aider or abettor to murder, being instructed that it was sufficient that the accused knew that the principal intended to kill or cause him bodily harm likely to result in deathand be reckless as to whether death ensued. The correct procedure require that the jury should have been instructed that the accused must have known that the principal intended to cause death or that the principal meant to cause bodily harm that the principal knew was likely to cause death and was reckless as to whether death ensued.
The jury was instructed that two (2) decision trees were being provided, one (1) for principals (of the indexed offence); and the other for aiders and abettors. The judge delivered his instructions on principal actor liability, followed by aiding and abetting liability. Given the structure of the charge, the Court of Appeal was not satisfied that the jury would have transferred the mens reafor a principal actor into their deliberations regarding the mental state for an aider or abettor to murder. The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was right to tell the jury that the analysis between the modes of participation was different. Having had the required different analysis highlighted for them, though, the jury may have thought that, in the context of aiding and abetting, the absence of knowledge of the principal’s subjective foresight of death was by design. The Court stated the following in relevant part at paragraph 37 of the decision:
[37] Given the structure of the charge, I am not satisfied that the jury would have transferred the mens rea for a principal actor into their deliberations regarding the mental state for an aider or abettor to murder. To be clear, the trial judge was right to tell the jury that the analysis between the modes of participation was different. Having had the required different analysis highlighted for them, though, the jury may have thought that, in the context of aiding and abetting, the absence of knowledge of the principal’s subjective foresight of death was by design.
Another error idenfitied by the Crimianl laws as acknowledged by the Court of Appeal was the trial judge’s definition of recklessness under s.229(a)(ii) and the Trial Court’s instruction to the jury that it amounted to seeing the risk that the complainant could ( as opposed to would likely ) die from the injury to be inflicted.. This this error may have been otherwise inconsequential, but it was compounded by the erroneous instruction regarding the accused’s need to know the principal’s subjective foresight of death:
As the jury was instructed only to consider the decision tree that concerned “aiding and abetting decision tree if they failed to reach a unanimous verdict of guilt for first degree murder, the fact that the jury asked a question with respect to the aiding and abetting decision tree showed that they had not achieved that unanimity. By putting the query to the trial court whether there was a distinction between intent to kill and intent to cause bodily harm likely to result in death indicated that the jury very possibly, if not likely, were deliberating under a misapprehension as to whether the accused was required to know of the principal’s subjective foresight of death. Unfortunately, the trial judge’s answer to the jury repeated the earlier erroneous instructions and indicated that the jury could convict the accused as an aider or abettor without knowing of the principal’s subjective intention for murder. The case against the accused as the principal, the shooter, was strong. However, the court could not apply the curative proviso as the jury’s question revealed that the jury was considering the accused’s culpability in terms of aiding and abbeting. In the circumstances, it could not be said that a conviction was inevitable. The Court of Appeal held as follows at paragraph 51:
[51] The jury was demonstrating some confusion. They needed assistance. Unfortunately, the answer served to repeat the error that had already been repeated on multiple occasions in the charge. In the end, read in the context of the entire charge, I am not satisfied that the jury properly understood the knowledge component of the mental element for an aider or abettor to murder.
Mr. J.S. Patel, Criminal Lawyer practices criminal law in Calgary and assumes conduct of serious criminal matters such as murder trials and appeals, sexual assaults, and domestic violence charges, DUI charges causing bodily harm or death. For a consultation, call 403-585-1960.
The above noted is only general legal information and is not intended as specific legal advice. Contact our offices if you wish to secure full legal advice.
Guilty pleas, striking or vacating a guilty plea in Canada.
“Simply put, pleading guilty is the decision of the accused, not a reasonable accused, or someone like the accused.”
In Regina v. Wong, 2018 SCC 25, a 4:3 majority of the Supreme Court of Canadaheld that when an accused person seeks to withdraw a guilty plea on the basis that he or she did not appreciate the consequences of that plea, he or she must establish subjective prejudice.
The Supreme Court said that an Accused person who seeks to withdraw their guilty plea on the basis that they were unaware of legally relevant consequences at the time of the plea should be required to establish subjective prejudice. To that end, the accused must file an affidavit establishing a reasonable possibility that he or she would have either (1) opted for a trial and pleaded not guilty; or (2) pleaded guilty, but with different conditions.
Because the original guilty plea is an exercise of the accused’s own subjective judgment, it logically follows that the test for withdrawing that plea should also be directed to the accused’s subjective judgment. The inquiry is subjective to the accused, but allows for an objective assessment of the credibility of the accused’s subjective claim. Ultimately, what matters is the accused’s decision to plead guilty or to proceed to trial, and not whether that decision is, to someone else, reckless or irrational. This framework is premised upon the view that judicial scrutiny must be directed to how the accused, and no one else, would have proceeded. But like all credibility determinations, the accused’s claim about what his or her subjective and fully informed choice would have been is measured against objective circumstances. Courts should therefore carefully scrutinize the accused’s assertion, looking to objective, circumstantial evidence to test its veracity against a standard of reasonable possibility. This approach strikes the proper balance between finality of guilty pleas and fairness to the accused. The accused need not show a viable defence to the charge in order to withdraw a plea on procedural grounds and requiring the accused to articulate a route to an acquittal is antithetical to the presumption of innocence and to the subjective nature of choosing to plead guilty.”
The accused, Mr. Wong, is a permanent resident, had pleaded guilty to cocaine trafficking and was sentenced to nine (9) months’ imprisonment without realizing this would automatically make him inadmissible to Canada and prevent him from appealing the inadmissibility. The majority from the Supreme Court held that the accused’s had filed an affidavit that failed to indicate that he would have proceeded differently had he known of the collateral immigration consequences and that therefore the plea could not be withdrawn. However, the Crown conceded a sentence of six (6) months less a day was appropriate and this would restore the accused’s right to appeal his inadmissibility.
The three-member dissent would have used a “modified objective” test: whether a reasonable person in the same situation as the accused would have proceeded differently had he or she been aware of the collateral consequences. The dissent stated:
The dissent’s modified objective approach to determine whether an accused has shown prejudice would not account for the fundamentally subjective and deeply personal nature of the decision to plead guilty. Pleading guilty is the decision of the accused, not a reasonable accused, or someone like the accused. To permit reviewing courts to substitute their own view of what someone in the accused’s circumstances would have done is to run a serious risk of doing injustice to that accused. A modified objective framework focusses upon what a judicially constructed hypothetical person would do, instead of how the particular accused would have proceeded. Furthermore, this approach would likely be difficult for lower courts to apply. Given the highly contextual and even idiosyncratic nature of factors that influence important decisions, adopting a standard based on what a hypothetical reasonable person who need not be presumed to have taken the best or single most rational course of action would have done effectively confers upon reviewing courts unbounded discretion to reach whatever conclusion they see fit. The modified objective framework also adopts a variable standard of scrutiny, not tied to a particular accused, but rather to a reasonable person. However, different accused, even different similarly situated accused, may ascribe varying levels of significance to different collateral consequences. Thus, a modified objective approach risks resulting in vacated guilty pleas even where there is no evidence that the accused personally would have done something differently. Even further, an accused who admits under cross‑examination that he or she would have proceeded identically would still be entitled to withdraw his or her plea if a reasonable accused in his or her circumstances would withdraw the plea. This would impose unnecessary and substantial demands on a criminal justice system that is already overburdened.
This case illustrates the importance of ensuring that sufficient representations are made to a court when an application is made to vacate a guilty plea. If you are facing similar circumstances, call Mr. J.S. Patel, Criminal Lawyer at 403-585-1960.
If you have been convicted of a Criminal Code offence or of an offence under an Act of Parliament resulting in a jail term, an application can be made to secure judicial interim release (i.e. Bail) pending the outcome of your appeal.
It is critical to note, that the criminal law standards for securing bail are elevated, primarily due to the loss of the presumption of innocence due to the entry of the conviction. Section 679(3) of the Criminal Code allows a judge of a court of appeal to order the release of an offender who has appealed his (or her) conviction “if the appellant establishes that (a) the appeal … is not frivolous; (b) he will surrender himself into custody in accordance with the terms of the order; and (c) his detention is not necessary in the public interest.” There are two (2) components to the last criterion. The offender must establish that he or she is not a threat to public safety – the offender will not commit a criminal offence while on bail – and that a reasonable person who is thoughtful, dispassionate, informed and respectful of society’s fundamental values would not lose confidence in the administration of justice if the appeal court released the applicant.
In determining the public interest involves the balancing of great many factors. Some were listed in Regina v McNaughton, 2010 ABCA 97at para. 12, 26 Alta LR (5th) 126:
Without attempting to compile a complete list, some of the factors that are relevant to the exercise of the jurisdiction include:
ensuring fairness in the appeal process, to avoid the prospect of the applicant serving a sentence when the appeal is ultimately allowed (Charter of Rights, s. 11(e); Farinacciat paras. 43, 48; v. Fox, 2000 ABCA 283, 8 M.V.R. (4th) 1 at paras. 18-9; R. v. Colville, 2003 ABCA 133, 327 A.R. 143 at para. 12);
the fact of conviction, and the public importance of respecting the trial decision and the trial process (Nguyen[ (1997), 97 BCAC 86, 119 CCC (3d) 269] at para.18; Farinacciat para. 41; v. Rhyason, 2006 ABCA 120, 57 Alta. L.R. (4th) 31, 208 C.C.C. (3d) 193);
the apparent strength of the grounds for appeal, recognizing that it is not the role of the bail judge to resolve the merits ( v. Heyden(1999), 127 O.A.C. 190, 141 C.C.C. (3d) 570 at paras. 7-8, 12; Rhyasonat paras. 13-18; Colvilleat para. 16);
the standard of review that will be applied by the appeal court ( v. Sagoo, 2009 ABCA 357, 464 A.R. 258 at para. 9);
any risk that the applicant will reoffend if released (Nguyenat para. 7; Foxat paras.18, 20-21);
the applicant’s history of compliance with court orders and legally imposed conditions;
whether the applicant was released pending trial, and if so if his release was uneventful;
whether conditions of release could be crafted that would protect the public interest;
the seriousness of the charges, reflected in the severity of the sentence, although no class of offence is excluded from release (Nguyenat paras. 13, 20-24; Heydenat para. 12; v. R.D.L.(1995), 178 A.R. 142 at para. 5);
the effect on the perception of the administration of justice if the applicant is released, including the perception of an informed and reasonable member of society (Nguyenat paras. 25-6; Rhyasonat para. 20; Foxat para. 18; Colvilleat para. 17);
the status and state of readiness of the appeal (Farinacciat paras. 44, 48; Heydenat para. 12; D.L.at paras. 5, 12).
The Court of Appeal has recently considered two (2) cases that have considered the recent application of this rule: R. v. C.L, infra, and R. v. B.G. Each are discussed below:
Regina v. C.L, infra
The Ontario of Court of Appeal dismissed the accused’s application for bail pending appeal. Following a judge-alone trial, the accused in this case was convicted of sexual assault and being unlawfully in a dwelling house. As a consequence of the conviction and the outcome of the sentencing hearing, this accused person received a sentence of two (2) years less a day imprisonment plus two (2) years of probation. His application for bail pending appeal was dismissed. In dismissing the accused’s application, Trotter J.A. held that the public interest criterion was not met. This was because “[t]he materials filed fail to demonstrate that the grounds of appeal have sufficient strength to overcome the serious enforceability considerations present in this case” (at para. 21).
The Ontario Court of Appeal took umbrage with accused’s new charges of breach of recognizance, combined with his failure to mention them in his bail pending appeal affidavits. The Court stated that it did not inspire confidence about compliance with any bail pending appeal order that might be made. Justice Trotter stated as follows (at para. 13): “The new criminal charges should have been disclosed. Judges of this court rely heavily on the trustworthiness of affidavits sworn in support of bail pending appeal applications. They are expected to be both accurate and completeRegina v. B.G, Infra,
In Regina and B.G., 2018 ONCA 455 (RD), Justice Brown of the Ontario Court of Appeal, granted the accused’s application for bail pending appeal from his conviction for child pornography and sexual offences. The trial judge found that the accused had taken and distributed photographs depicting his young daughter naked. The Crown opposed the application on the grounds that the public interest criterion was not met. The public interest criterion in s. 679(3)(c) of the Criminal Code consists of two components: public safety and public confidence in the administration of justice:R v. Oland, 2017 SCC 17, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 250, at paras. 23 & 26. The public confidence criterion requires balancing several factors: the seriousness of the offence; the strength of the grounds of appeal; public safety; and flight risks: Oland, at paras. 37-
Justice Brown held as follows:
[12] The offences of which the applicant was convicted are very serious, involving as they do a vulnerable young child. However, when that factor is weighed with the remaining factors under the Oland public interest test – the strength of the grounds of appeal, no flight risk, and no threat to public safety – on balance, reviewability is favoured over enforceability.
“The offences of which the applicant was convicted are very serious, involving as they do a vulnerable young child. However, when that factor is weighed with the remaining factors under the Oland public interest test – the strength of the grounds of appeal, no flight risk, and no threat to public safety – on balance, reviewability is favoured over enforceability.”
These cases demonstrate the importance of the benefits of a properly prepared bail application (affidavits and arguments). The procedure in securing bail prior to trial differs markedly when a conviction has been entered and a person has been remanded into custody.
If you have been convicted of a criminal code offence and you are seeking bail, contact Mr. J.S. Patel, Barrister at 403-585-1960 to secure a telephone consultation.
Failure to Provide the Necessities of Life. Elements of the Offence and the sufficiency of a jury charge.
The parents of the deceased child had their conviction for the failure to provide the necessities of life for their (deceased) child overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) recently. In Regina v. Stephan, 2018 SCC 21, the SCC overturned the a ruling from the Alberta Court of Appeal and adopted reasoning of Justice O’Ferrall’s dissent.
The facts in this case were extremely unfortunate. The majority of the panel at the Alberta Court of Appeal restated the facts in the following terms:
[2] The appellants’ son, Ezekiel, was born in August 2010. On February 27, 2012, Ezekiel began to exhibit signs of illness while at pre-school. Symptoms included fever, decreased appetite, and trouble breathing and swallowing.
[3] Both parents were concerned. Rather than take him to a medical clinic, however, they contacted a family friend, a nurse, by telephone. After listening to Ezekiel’s breathing over the phone, the friend thought the problem might be croup. The appellants treated Ezekiel with fresh air, fluids, humidity and natural supplements including garlic, olive leaf extract and Methylsulonylmethane.
[4] Over the next few days, Ezekiel’s fever abated but he still felt hot. He continued to have a decreased appetite, low energy, decreased activity, and trouble breathing.
[5] By March 5, the appellants felt Ezekiel’s condition had improved as he no longer had trouble breathing, and he returned to pre-school. DavidStephanwent out of town to work.
[6] A day later, March 6, Ezekiel was weaker. He was less responsive; he stayed in bed and moaned. He tugged at his diaper and rubbed his face, both movements that seemed to ColletStephanto be involuntary. ColletStephanlooked online for a possible explanation and phoned DavidStephanto report that Ezekiel seemed to be getting sick again.
[7] DavidStephanreturned from work on March 8 with some natural products he had picked up while away. Ezekiel was fed apple cider vinegar, onion powder, ginger root, garlic, hot peppers and horseradish root. Over the next few days, Ezekiel’s condition appeared to improve, although he began to show signs of stiffness or joint tension.
[8] Between March 9 and 12, the stiffness increased and Ezekiel’s back began to arch. He refused food, and his lethargy and weakness increased. His parents were worried.
[9] On March 12, DavidStephanwent to a business meeting. ColletStephanphoned a nurse friend to ask her to examine Ezekiel. Collet told her husband about her concerns when he came home for lunch.
[10] The family friend examined Ezekiel and suggested the problem might be meningitis. She suggested that Ezekiel be taken to the doctor. Rather than following that advice, ColletStephansearched the internet seeking information about meningitis. Based upon the information she obtained, ColletStephantried the Brudzinski and Kernig tests for meningitis. The tests involve physical manipulation of the child’s head or legs. Ezekiel tested positive on both, but Collet concluded Ezekiel had viral meningitis, rather than the more serious form of bacterial meningitis. ColletStephancommunicated her conclusions to her husband when he returned from a second business meeting that day.
[11] DavidStephanstayed home the following day, March 13,to help and to take ColletStephanto Lethbridge to sign some documents. Before leaving for Lethbridge, ColletStephancontacted a naturopathic clinic to get some advice about boosting Ezekiel’s immune system because he had meningitis. The receptionist told her to take Ezekiel to a doctor.
[12] The appellants proceeded to Lethbridge with Ezekiel lying on a bed in the back of their vehicle because he could no longer sit comfortably in his car seat. After dealing with their lawyer, the appellants went to the naturopathic clinic to purchase an echinacea tincture called Blast. They administered this to Ezekiel, went shopping, and then returned home.
[13] That evening, Ezekiel began exhibiting difficulty breathing. About 9:00 p.m., after ColletStephanhad returned from a meeting, Ezekiel stopped breathing. DavidStephanphoned his father AnthonyStephanand then 911.
[14] ColletStephangot Ezekiel breathing again by slapping him on the back and then giving him a few rescue breaths. DavidStephanphoned 911 to call off the ambulance saying they would bring Ezekiel to the hospital by car. The family left 20 minutes later for the Cardston hospital but before they arrived, Ezekiel again stopped breathing. ColletStephanperformed CPR while DavidStephandrove on and phoned 911. They were met by an ambulance outside of Cardston.
[15] The responders began performing CPR but they had difficulty securing an airway due to a lack of proper equipment. This deficiency lasted eight minutes until just before the ambulance reached the hospital in Cardston.
[16] Ezekiel was treated at the Cardston hospital and then transferred to Lethbridge in order to be taken by STARS air ambulance to the Children’s Hospital in Calgary. He never regained consciousness. On March 15 and 16, Ezekiel was neurologically assessed and determined to be brain-dead. Life sustaining therapies were discontinued and on March 18, 2012, Ezekiel died.
However, Justice O’Ferrall said the following about the facts of the case, in his dissent:
[211] On the facts of this case, it cannot be argued that the Stephans were not devoted and loving parents. They did not neglect their 18-month old son’s symptoms when he exhibited them. They did not fail to provide him with what they thought were the necessaries of life. They monitored him closely when he became ill, doing what they believed was best for him. There is no doubt the decisions they made with respect to the well-being of their son turned out to be terribly wrong, but it is not clear that their acts or omissions were criminal in the sense of deserving of punishment for moral blameworthiness.
[212] That said, a jury of their peers did find the Stephans guilty of failing to provide the necessaries of life to their son, contrary to section 215(2)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code. However, as argued by the appellants, the trial judge’s charge to the jury was problematic, perhaps to the point of impacting the fairness of the trial. At the very least, the jury charge was confusing, misleading, and deficient in describing a key element of the offence. Furthermore, the trial judge did not properly instruct the jury on the fault element or the mens rea of the offence. The cumulative effect of the jury instructions may have been an unsafe or suspect verdict.
The SCC accepted Justice O’Ferrall’s reasoning that in sum, the trial judge failed in his jury charge for three (3) reasons:
(1)The Trial Judge he did not adequately explain what the jury’s focus should have been in determining whether there had been a failureunder the second element of the offence. The full legal test, outlining the elements of the offence, was explained in Reginav F,2008 SCC 60 (CanLII) at paras 66-67, [2008] 3 SCR 215:
The actus reus of failing to provide the necessaries of life will be established if it is proved (1) that the accused was under a legal duty to provide the necessaries of life to the person in question pursuant to s. 215(1)(a); (2) that, from an objective standpoint, he or she failed to perform the duty; and (3) that, again from an objective standpoint, this failure endangered the life of the person to whom the duty was owed, or caused or was likely to cause the health of that person to be endangered permanently. Following Charron J.’s reasoning in R. v. Beatty, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49, 2008 SCC 5 (CanLII), the marked departure standard is not applied at this point, since “[n]othing is gained by adding to the words of [the statute] at this stage of the analysis” (para. 45).
The mens rea of failing to provide the necessaries of life will be established if it is proved that the conduct of the accused represented a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable parent, foster parent, guardian or family head in the same circumstances.
Each of the four elements specified in the above test (the three elements of the actus reus plus the mens rearequirement) must be proven in order to obtain a conviction. It was important for the jury to keep these four distinct elements in mind. However, the trial judge, in his charge to the jury, combined two of them.
Secondly, the trial judge appeared to incorrectly assume the third (3rd) element of the offence had already been met in instructing the jury on the second (2nd) element of the offence. The trial judge made the following comments to the jury in this case:
In deciding whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that David Stephan failed to provide necessaries of life you must determine whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct of David Stephan represented a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent and ordinary person where that reasonable person, in all the circumstances of David Stephan would foresee that medical attention was required to maintain Ezekiel’s life, and that reasonable person would also foresee that failing to provide the medical attention would endanger Ezekiel’s life.
This was found to be an error by Justice O’Ferral because “…he foregoing instruction seems to invite the jury to assume as true the latter half of the statement (in bold) when considering whether the conduct of the parents amounted to a failure to provide the necessaries of life. The latter half of the statement is essentially the third element of the actus reus of the offence, which is to be determined only after a failure to provide the necessaries of life has been established.”
Thirdly, the trial failed to adequately explain the mens rea element of the offence to the jury. Specifically, the Trial Judge was required to explain what constituted a “marked departure”; and this was not done. Marked departure is a difficult concept even for those with legal training and therefore requires explanation. The discussion in Regina v Beatty, 2008 SCC 5 (CanLII), [2008] 1 SCR 49 is helpful. That case dealt with the charge of dangerous driving which, like that of failing to provide the necessaries of life, requires proof of a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person in order to found a conviction. The majority in Beatty explains, at paragraph 7, that:
The distinction between a mere departure and a marked departure from the norm is a question of degree. It is only when the conduct meets the higher threshold that the court may find, on the basis of that conduct alone, a blameworthy state of mind.
This case demonstrates the necessity of ensuring that the jury charge is properly examined before being put to the jury either at the trial stage or (after the fact) at the appellate stage of the criminal law proceedings. It is critical to seek the advice of a criminal trial and appeal lawyer in face serious criminal charges wherein the Crown is seeking a conviction for failure to provide for the necessities of life.
If you have been charged with a serious criminal offence, contact Mr. J.S. Patel, Criminal Lawyer for advice at 403-585-1960.
Section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs Substances Act
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the Superior Court in striking down the mandatory minimums required under ‘Unauthorized Production” provisions of Section 7(1) of Controlled Drugs Substances Act (the “CDSA”). InReginaand VU, 2018 ONCA 436, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered three (3) separate sentence appeals, from three (2) accused persons who had levied a challenge, through defence counsel, to the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana production under the CDSA. Each defendants, Pham, Vu, Li, were convicted of unauthorized production of marijuana under s.7(1) of the CDSA. Criminal Defence counsel, at the sentencing stage, had filed an application under the Judicature Act to challenge the applicable mandatory minimum as contrary to s.12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedomsas cruel and unusual punishment. Each appeal is summarized below.
In the Regina v. Pham appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing judge’s ruling (which is reported at 2016 ONSC 5312) that the two (2)-year mandatory minimum under CDSA s.7(2)(b)(v) which involves the production of more than five hundred (500) plants was contrary to s.12. That same order of juridical logic was applied to s.7(2)(b)(vi) (three-year minimum for production of more than five-hundred (500) plants where statutory aggravating factor applies. What is more, the ONCA also upheld the ruling, from the Sentencing Court, that the aggravating factor under CDSA s.7(3)(c), which is the production constituting a potential safety hazard in a residential area was unconstitutional. In considering the application of the famed Reginav. Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103test, the highest Court in Ontario found that none of these provisions could be saved under s.1 of the Charter. The Court stated the following in relevant part:
[83] I do not accept these submissions. With respect to ss. 7(2)(b)(vi) and 7(3)(c), they ignore the fundamental finding that this three-year mandatory minimum can apply to persons who have no moral culpability in relation to the statutory aggravating factor. The provisions could have been tailored to avoid this result. They are neither minimally impairing nor proportionate.[84] Similarly, with respect to s. 7(2)(b)(v), as the Pham sentencing judge noted, Parliament could have provided a safety valve to allow judges to grant exemptions in exceptional cases. Once again, the provisions are neither minimally impairing nor proportional.
The court also rejected the Crown’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that the impugned mandatory minimum provisions could be “read down” by inserting the words “if the production is for the purpose of trafficking” into each subsection.
In the Reginav. Vuappeal, the Ontario upheld Justice Durno striking down of the three (3) year minimum arising out of s.7(3)(c) of the CDSA(reported at 2015 ONSC 5834 and 2015 ONSC 7965), but set aside his ruling that the two (2) year minimum under s.7(2)(b)(v) was constitutional. The court held that its findings in the Phamappeal governed the constitutional issues in the Vu Appeal with equal force. Durno J. had also struck down the mandatory minimums under ss.7(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the CDSA (less than 201 and more than five plants). The accused had not been charged under these sections. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Crown that it was not open to the sentencing judge to declare invalid provisions not applicable to the accused. As a result, the Crown did not have an appeal route in relation to these declarations as they did not play a role in the sentencing decision and the court did not have to consider their constitutionality.
In the Li appeal, the court reversed the sentencing judge’s ruling (reported at 2016 ONSC 1757) and held that the 12-month mandatory minimum under s.7(2)(b)(iii) of the CDSA (production of more than 200 but less than 501 plants) violated s.12 of the Charter and could not be saved under s.1. The analysis and reasonable hypotheticals from the Pham appeal applied equally to this accused. The Court concluded the case in the following terms at paragraphs 119 to 121:
[119] In summary, I would dismiss the Crown’s appeal in Pham and uphold the declarations that ss. 7(2)(b)(v), (vi) and 7(3)(c) of the CDSA are unconstitutional.
[120] I would also dismiss the Crown’s appeal in Vu. My conclusion in respect of the Pham appeal governs the constitutional arguments in relation to ss. 7(2)(b)(v), (vi) and 7(3)(c). The Crown has not demonstrated that it has an appeal route to this court relating to their ss. 7(2)(b)(i) and (ii) argument as the declarations of invalidity in relation to those sections had no impact on the sentence Mr. Vu received. As Mr. Vu has now completed his sentence, I would dismiss his sentence appeal as moot.
[121] Finally, I would allow Mr. Li’s appeal. Based on my reasoning in the Pham appeal, I would hold that s. 7(2)(b)(iii) of the CDSA violates s. 12 of the Charter, cannot be saved by s. 1 and should be declared of no force and effect under s. 52 of the Constitution Act. I would reduce Mr. Li’s sentence from 12 months’ imprisonment to six months’ less one day.
This case demonstrates the importance the importance of considering the constitutionality of mandatory minimums before concede the statutorily imposed requirements in the Code. A well-crafted section 12 Charterchallenge can make the difference between years of imprisonment and possibly a non-custodial term.
Call Mr. J.S. Patel, Barrister for a consultation, if you have been charged with producing a controlled substance under the CDSA: 403-585-1960.
Criminal Lawyer in Calgary and Toronto, DUI, Over 80, Domestic Assault, Sexual Assault, Murder, Legal Aid,
