Tag Archives: Drug Lawyers in Calgary

blog

Co-Principal Liability in the context of Second Degree Murder by J.S. Patel, Criminal Defence Lawyer (403-585-1960)

Leave a comment

Co-principal liability was recently explained by the Court of Appeal in Regina v. Abdulle, 2020 ONCA 106 (CanLII). In circumstances involving co-principals, as is the case here, the liability of parties to an offence is addressed by s. 21 of the Code. In Regina v. Spackman, 2012 ONCA 905, 295 C.C.C. (3d) 177, Justice Watt  explained that co-principals are liable where they “together form an intention to commit an offence, are present at its commission, and contribute to it, although each does not personally commit all the essential elements of the offence”: at para. 181.  This was also explained in Regina v. Pickton, 2010 SCC 32, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 198, at para. 63. In order to be liable as principals, therefore, the parties must have had the requisite intention.  Within the scope of the requisite mens rea required for second-degree murder is outlined in s. 229 of the Criminal Code, which states that culpable homicide is murder where the person who causes the death of a human being either means to cause their death, or means to cause them bodily harm that they know is likely to cause their death and is reckless whether or not death ensues.

In Regina v. Abdulle, 2020 ONCA 106, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the appellants’ convictions for second-degree murder. The convictions arose from an altercation that occurred in the parking lot of the apartment building where the deceased lived. The deceased was stabbed multiple times, beaten, kicked, and stomped on by a group of young people. He was without vital signs when paramedics arrived, and he was pronounced dead at the hospital. The three appellants – Abdulle, Jama and Egal – and a fourth accused, Bryan, were charged with second-degree murder. The Crown alleged that the accused were co-principals in an attack on the deceased, that one or more of them inflicted the fatal stab wounds, and that all had the necessary intent for murder under s.229(a) of the Criminal Code. The jury convicted the appellants and acquitted Bryan. The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 12 years.  The Court of Appeal made the following findings that: (a)t he trial judge properly instructed the jury on the liability of co-principals and on the mens rea for murder; (b) the trial judge did not err by improperly restricting Abdulle’s evidence; (c)The trial judge did not err by failing to give the jury an Oliver instruction [Regina v. Oliver, [2005] CanLII 3582, [2005] O.J. No. 596 (C.A.), at paras. 50-60] regarding Bryan’s evidence, warning that they should consider his testimony with particular care and caution; (d) the trial judge made no error in allowing counsel for Bryan to cross-examine a witness (Jama’s mother) on her police statement that Egal had a knife, and in failing to grant a mistrial; (e) the trial judge did not err by improperly instructing the jury concerning a witness’s prior inconsistent statement; and (f) the verdict was not unreasonable in relation to Jama.

If you have been charged with a criminal offence, contact Mr. J.S. Patel, Barrister at 403-585-1960 for a consultation.

blog

R. v. Myers: A fulsome analysis of s.525 bail reviews (30-day and 90-day reviews) by the Supreme Court of Canada

Leave a comment
Bail Reviews in Canada
Bail Reviews in Canada. Regina v. Myers.

The application of mental health in the context of bail reviews was recently clarified in a recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in Regina v. Myers, 2019 SCC 18.  The SCC confirmed animating and cardinal principle right out of the gate at paragraph 1:

 “The right to liberty and the presumption of innocence are fundamental tenets of our criminal justice system. In the pre-trial context, release — at the earliest opportunity and in the least onerous manner — is the default presumption in Canadian criminal law. Pre-trial detention is the exception, not the rule.”

Those prefatory remarks permeate the entirety of the decision. In my view this decision addressed a critical gap in the jurisprudence.The query before the Court was determine the correct approach to a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Code”); and to explain the place of such a review within the larger context of pre-trial custody in Canada. The Court made the following salient points.

  1. It emphasised that Judges and justices at bail hearings should always give very careful consideration to release plans that involve supervised treatment for individuals with substance abuse and mental health issues. Of importance, it stressed at paragraph 67 of the decision that the release into treatment with appropriate conditions will often adequately address any risk, and “we must not lose sight of the fact that pre-trial detention is a measure of last resort”.   It noted that Parliament intended the s.525 review provisions to be a safeguard; and that Section 525 bail reviews are not restricted to cases in which there has been an unreasonable delay in bringing the accused to trial, although delay can be relevant to the court’s review.

  2. The onus to apply for a s.525 review is on the prosecution, and accordingly an accused person or their defence counsel need not request a hearing. Detained persons are are entitled to a s.525 hearing. This applies even if they did not have an initial bail hearing. In such cases, the review judge must apply the “ladder principle” (see Regina Antic, [2017 SCC 27); and determine the issue of bail de novo.

  3. At the review hearing, the task of the judge must centre on the issue of whether “…the continued detention of the accused in custody justified within the meaning of s. 515(10) [the detention provisions]?” In this connection, the hearing is a review of the detention itself, not of any order made in a lower court, although errors in detention orders may justify revisiting the order. With great clarity, Court remarked at paragraph 63:

  4. At the hearing, unreasonable delay is not a threshold that must be met before reviewing the detention of the accused. The overarching question is only whether the continued detention of the accused in custody is justified within the meaning of  515(10). In determining whether the detention of the accused is still justified, the reviewing judge may consider any new evidence or change in the circumstances of the accused, the impact of the passage of time and any unreasonable delay on the proportionality of the detention, and the rationale offered for the original detention order, if one was made. If there was no initial bail hearing, the s. 525 judge is responsible for conducting one, taking into account the time the accused has already spent in pre-trial custody. Ultimately, s. 525 requires a reviewing judge to provide accused persons with reasons why their continued detention is — or is not —justified. Finally, the judge should make use of his or her discretion under ss. 525(9) and 526 to give directions for expediting the trial and related proceedings where it is appropriate to do so. Directions should be given with a view to mitigating the risk of unconstitutional delay and expediting the trials of accused persons who are subject to lengthy pre-trial detention.

  5. In terms of the reception of the evidence, the court may receive any evidence that is credible or trustworthy, unless it existed at the time of the initial bail hearing and is barred by the “due diligence” and “relevance” criteria. And finally, the reviewing judge must give directions to expedite the trial of persons in custody, and to ensure the accused will not be in a “time served” position before the trial date.

If you have been charged with a criminal offence and seeking a bail review on any of your conditions or are seeking you release,  contact our office at 403-585-1960.

blog

Cross Examining on Specific Instances of Sexual activity,and the Jurisdiction of trial judge to revisit pre-trial rulings of prior judges on Pre-Trial Applications.

Leave a comment
Sexual Offences
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. 

blog

The mandatory minimum punishment laws for the production of a controlled substance, contrary to Section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs Substances Act, was struck down as unconstitutional by the Ontario of the Appeal.

Leave a comment
Unlawful Production of a Controlled Substance and Unconstitutional Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Drug Sentence Appeal Lawyers.
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 Freedoms as 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.    

blog

A crushing sentence that was imposed by the sentencing judge was overturned, at appeal, by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Leave a comment

Recently the Court of Appeal in Regina v.  Williams, 2018 ONCA 367the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the accused’s appeal against his twelve (12)-year sentence (less five years for time served) which was imposed, following his guilty plea, in response to convictions for drug and firearm offences arising out of two sets of charges.  He pled guilty to: 1)   Possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, 2)   Possession of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking, 3)  Carrying a concealed firearm, 4)  Possession of a restricted firearm with readily accessible ammunition, and 5)   Breach of recognizance (for possession of a firearm).

The trial court imposed what the Court of Appeal viewed as a crushing sentence, which precluding the prospects of rehabilitation, a valid sentencing objective.  The Court of Appeal stated:

 While the sentencing judge noted the appellant’s guilty pleas to the second set of charges in his narrative of events, his reasons do not indicate he took the guilty pleas into account in determining the appropriate sentence. Further, while the trial judge noted the appellant’s relative youth at the time of sentencing, his reasons do not indicate he took into account that the appellant was just 23 years of age and a first offender at the time of the first set of offences or that a first penitentiary sentence should be the shortest possible that achieves the relevant sentencing objectives. Finally, we are of the view the sentencing judge did not accord sufficient weight to the factor that the appellant should not be crushed by the sentence. In our view, the sentence imposed all but eliminates the appellant’s prospects for rehabilitation when considering the “Principles and Purposes of Sentencing”  in the Criminal Code of Canada.  While denunciation and deterrence are widely accepted as primary sentencing principles, section 718(d) clearly requires consideration to the issue of rehabilitation. 

The reasons for sentence did not indicate that the sentencing judge took into account the fact that the accused was only 23 years old and a first offender at the time of the first set of charges, or that a first penitentiary sentence should be the shortest possible sentence that achieves the relevant sentencing objectives.  Furthermore, the sentencing judge failed to sufficiently consider that the sentence should not be crushing to the accused.  The court reduced the sentence to nine years.

If you are seeking to appeal your conviction against your sentence, contact our law firm at 403-585-1960 and speak to J.S. Patel, Barrister.  We accept legal aid on a case by case basis and charge a consultation fee for a review of appellate matters.

blog

Police brutality and Excessive force in arresting an accused person through the use of a baton and pepper spray: Contact: J.S. Patel at 403-585-1960

Leave a comment

In Regina  v. Hines, 2018 ONCJ 197, the Ontario Court of Justice held the police used excessive force where, in the context of a “chaotic” situation, they struck the accused in the face with a baton and pepper sprayed him while he was handcuffed.

 

The relevant facts were as follows:

Excessive Force

[18]            As indicated at the outset, Mr. Brannagan conceded that Brewer’s use of pepper spray was excessive force and a Charter violation. Mr. Chu also alleged that, in addition to pepper spray, excessive force was used in striking Mr. Hines in the face with a baton during the arrest. Those blows opened up two significant lacerations on the defendant’s face, which was made additionally painful by the application of pepper spray. The Crown refused to call Brewer, submitting that the defendant had the burden to prove facts that supported the Charter violation. While I agree the burden lies with the defendant to establish Charter violations, I ruled that fairness required this Court to call Brewer as a witness, allowing both counsel the opportunity to conduct cross-examinations. I did so because Brewer was, by nature of his actions that night, and by nature of his position as a police officer, a witness adverse to the defendant’s interest.

Constable Brewer

[19]            Brewer admitted striking Hines with his baton. He is unable to remember the number of strikes or the exact location of the strikes. Brewer was aware of facial injuries suffered by Hines but unaware if the cause was his baton strikes or when he was taken to the ground. He maintained he was frightened by the knife, and Hines assaultive behaviour, and not knowing if Hines still had a weapon. He also maintained the blows were done to effect an arrest, and not after Hines was handcuffed.

[20]            Constable Brewer’s status as a police officer is somewhat unusual. In September of 2017, he was convicted of Common Nuisance and Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm in Durham region arising from an incident that occurred on December 1, 2016. Constable Brewer had brought a handgun into the bedroom in which his spouse was sleeping, then followed her to the main floor holding the gun, put the gun in his own mouth, and then fired it eight times into the night sky outside his house. At the time, Brewer agreed he was suffering from depression, alcoholism and PTSD.

[21]            In addition to the criminal record resulting from the incident above, Brewer admitted drinking while on duty and being disciplined for it in November of 2016. Brewer denies alcohol was a factor in this case and does not think his mental health problems were either. Essentially he was of the view that Hines was “being actively resistant” and was attempting to get out of his scout car when he employed pepper spray.

[22]            While I found Constable Brewer’s evidence to be for the most part candid (and quite heartbreaking regarding his present condition), this last contention is demonstrably false. Mr. Hines was handcuffed to the rear and splayed out horizontally in the back seat of the scout car. Brewer stopped the scout car as it starts to leave the scene, and Brewer opened the door. Hines was not resisting; he was not kicking; and he certainly was not trying to escape.

[23]            In my view, to insist escape was the reason for employing pepper spray undermines what was otherwise credible evidence. That false contention makes his evidence, that he was unsure that his baton strikes connected with the defendant’s face, virtually impossible to accept.

At the Charter application, the Crown refused to call as a witness the police officer who struck and sprayed the accused, and so the court called the officer as a witness adverse in interest to the defence. The court declined to stay the charges (assault police, possession of a knife, possession of cocaine, and threatening), holding that a remedy could be fashioned on sentence.  The Court stated that:

[34]            A stay of proceedings is a drastic remedy, a remedy of last resort to be granted only in the clearest of cases (O’Connor 1995 CanLII 51 (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411). The defendant submits that no remedy short of a stay of proceedings is appropriate. Alternative remedies, sentence reduction for example, would not send the necessary message that the justice system denounces police brutality.

[35]            The defendant does not argue abuse of process in that the police conduct interfered with a fair trial. Rather, that it fell within the residual category referred to in paragraph 73 of O’Connor:

73               As I have already noted, the common law doctrine of abuse of process has found application in a variety of different circumstances involving state conduct touching upon the integrity of the judicial system and the fairness of the individual accused’s trial.  For this reason, I do not think that it is helpful to speak of there being any one particular “right against abuse of process” within the Charter.  Depending on the circumstances, different Charter guarantees may be engaged.  For instance, where the accused claims that the Crown’s conduct has prejudiced his ability to have a trial within a reasonable time, abuses may be best addressed by reference to s. 11(b) of the Charter, to which the jurisprudence of this Court has now established fairly clear guidelines (Morin, supra).  Alternatively, the circumstances may indicate an infringement of the accused’s right to a fair trial, embodied in ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.  In both of these situations, concern for the individual rights of the accused may be accompanied by concerns about the integrity of the judicial system.  In addition, there is a residual category of conduct caught by s. 7 of the Charter.  This residual category does not relate to conduct affecting the fairness of the trial or impairing other procedural rights enumerated in the Charter, but instead addresses the panoply of diverse and sometimes unforeseeable circumstances in which a prosecution is conducted in such a manner as to connote unfairness or vexatiousness of such a degree that it contravenes fundamental notions of justice and thus undermines the integrity of the judicial process.

[36]            When determining if a stay is the appropriate remedy for the “residual” category, the approach taken by the Supreme Court in R. v. Regan sets out the appropriate test to be considered. There are three factors to be considered by a court asked to order a stay of proceedings, as set out in Regan 2002 SCC 12 (CanLII), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 297, at paras. 54 – 57:

(1)     Will the prejudice caused by the impugned behaviour be manifested, perpetuated or aggravated through the conduct of a trial, or by its outcome;

(2)     Is any other remedy reasonably capable of removing the prejudice; and

(3)     If there should be doubt as to the appropriateness of a stay, how do the interests that would be served by a stay weigh against society’s interest in having a final decision on the charges on the merits?

[37]            Applying the above test, I conclude that there is a societal interest in having a judicial decision on the merits regarding the knife attack on Mr. Humphries. A remedy exists to reflect police brutality, which can be factored into the sentence. The assault police, possession of the knife, possession of cocaine, and uttering threats charges will be stayed as the only remedy capable of expressing this Court’s condemnation of Constable Brewer’s excessive use of force, as well as a recog­nition of the significant harm caused to Mr. Hines resulting from this brutality.

 

A different result was achieved in Reginav. Girbav, 2012 ABPC 219 wherein the Court, on similarly related facts, entered a stay of Proceedings by the Honourable Judge Brown of the Provincial Court of Alberta. In that decision, the Court, in directing the stay stated:

“While the beating meted out to Mr. Girbav was a far cry from the horrific assault in Tran, to allow the prosecution to continue, given the wantonness of the attack on Mr. Girbav and the attempt at burnishing the account after the fact, would cause irreparable harm to the justice system.  As in Mohmedi, Gladue and Tran, this appears to be a case in which the officers succumbed to anger in their dealings with Mr. Girbav.”
 

Cleary, this is a fact-driven inquiry that is mixed with complex issues of law and jurisprudence. It is critical to seek legal advice as soon as possible to ensure that the relevant evidence (including injuries) are well documented and evidence is preserved.

   

The above noted information is not intended as legal advice nor does it puport to provide information on any civil claims against a police force.  It is general information about specifically reported cases .  

 

Police Brutality, Excessive Force, Criminal Lawyers

If you have been charged with a offence that involved the use of excessive police force and/or abuse, call Mr. J.S. Patel, Criminal Defence Lawyer at 403-585-1960 for a consultation during regular office hours. 

     

blog

The Constitutionality of the Dangerous Offender Provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Leave a comment
Under the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Code”), a “dangerous offender” designation carries serious criminal law consequences.  Generally, it is reserved for the most violent and sexual predators.  The designation carries an automatic sentence of imprisonment for an indeterminate period, with no chance of parole for seven years.   The constitutionality of those provisions of the Code were recently challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64 (“Boutilier”).   The majority of the Court upheld the constitutionality of the two (2) sections of the regime that was amended in 2008.  Currently, Section 753(1) of the Code sets out this two-stage test: the designation stage and the penalty stage.  It requires the lower Court, tasked with the adjudication, at the designation stage, if a sentencing judge is satisfied that the statutory criteria under s. 753(1) have been met, the designation as a dangerous offender must follow. At the penalty stage, under s. 753(4.1), a sentencing judge must impose an indeterminate sentence on a designated individual (an ordinary sentence followed by a long-term supervision order, or only an ordinary sentence) unless he or she is satisfied that there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure will adequately protect the public.   In this case, the sentencing judge granted B’s application in part, finding only that s. 753(1) is unconstitutionally overbroad. Nevertheless, the sentencing judge held that B was a dangerous offender and sentenced him to an indeterminate detention. The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge had erred in finding s. 753(1) to be overbroad but agreed with the sentencing judge that s. 753(4.1) did not violate ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter. The Court of Appeal dismissed B’s appeal of his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.  The matter was further appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court stated the following in relevant part:   Continue reading The Constitutionality of the Dangerous Offender Provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. →

blog

Whether text messages attract a reasonable expectation of privacy under Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and whether such evidence ought to be ought excluded from a trial viz Section 24(2) of the Charter?

Leave a comment

Whether text messages attract a reasonable expectation of privacy under Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and whether such evidence ought to be ought excluded from a trial viz Section 24(2) of the Charter?

Text messages that have been sent and received can, in some cases, attract a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore can be protected under s.8 of the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) in Regina v. Marakah, 2017 SCC 59 framed the (Orwellian) issues in this way:

Can Canadians ever reasonably expect the text messages they send to remain private, even after the messages have reached their destination? Or is the state free, regardless of the circumstances, to access text messages from a recipient’s device without a warrant? The question in this appeal is whether the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure in s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can ever apply to such messages.

In a five (5): two (2) split, the SCC allowed the accused’s appeal, set aside his convictions for multiple firearms offences, and entered acquittals. The accused sent text messages dialoguing illegal transactions in firearms. The police obtained warrants to search the accused’s home and that of W. They seized the accused’s BlackBerry and W’s iPhone, searched the devices, and found incriminating text messages. It was argued at trial, by his criminal defence counsel, that the indexed messages ought not be admitted against him based on a breach of his s.8 Charter right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure. Based on the arguments and submissions made to an application judge, it was held that the warrant for the accused’s home was invalid; and that the text messages recovered from his BlackBerry could not be used against him, but that the accused had no standing to argue that the messages recovered from W’s iPhone should not be admitted against him.  The phone did not belong to him, and as such, did not retain a privacy interest in the item.  As a logical consequence of that decision, the application judge admitted the text messages and convicted the accused. A majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the accused’s appeal.

On further appeal, the majority of the SCC held in Marakah that the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages recovered from W’s iPhone, and therefore had standing to claim s.8 Charter protection for the text messages.

The majority reasoned that: the subject matter of the alleged search was the electronic conversation between the accused and W; the accused had a direct interest in the subject matter; the accused subjectively expected it to remain private; and that expectation was objectively reasonable. The majority stated that the risk that W could have disclosed the text messages to third parties did not negate the reasonableness of the accused’s expectation of privacy against state intrusion. The majority also stated that its conclusion on the issue of standing was not displaced by policy concerns.

The Crown conceded that if the accused had standing, the search was unreasonable. The text messages were thus presumptively inadmissible against the accused, subject to s.24(2) of the Charter. The majority held that the evidence should be excluded under s.24(2). The majority stated that society’s interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits favoured admission. However, the police conduct in accessing and searching the electronic conversation through W’s iPhone without a warrant two hours after his arrest was sufficiently serious to warrant exclusion. In addition, the police conduct had a considerable impact on the accused’s Charter-protected privacy interest in the electronic conversation. The majority concluded that, on balance, the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Two (2) members of the Court dissented. Justices Moldaver and Côté JJ. would have held that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his text message conversations with W and therefore, he lacked standing to challenge the search of W’s phone under s.8 of the Charter. The dissenting minority stated that the accused’s lack of control over W’s phone was fatal to his reasonable expectation of privacy in the text message conversations on W’s phone, and that policy considerations supported the conclusion that the accused lacked standing under s.8.

If you have been charged with a criminal offence wherein the police have secured your mobile devices in the similar matter, contact an experienced criminal lawyer from our office.  Call J.S. Patel, Barrister at 403-585-1960 or 1-888-695-2211 for a consultation.  

blog

Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy, under the Charter, for hydro and electricity Records under s. 8? If so, should that evidence be excluded due to a breach of those rights?

Leave a comment

August 19, 2017

In Regina v. Orlandis-Habsburgo, 2017 ONCA 649, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated there is but given the applicable law at the time of the indexed offence, the police could not be criticized for their conduct and the evidence was admitted in either event despite the breach of the defendants’ Charter Rights by J.S. Patel, Barrister:  403-585-1960 or 1-888-695-2211

Two (2) accused persons in this case rented a home in a residential area in Hamilton, Ontario where they operated a commercial-sized marihuana grow-op in the basement.   Their energy provider was Horizon Utilities Corp their energy provider. It was a Government Corporation, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) applied to its conduct.  That company had observed an irregular pattern of electricity use in the indexed residence that lead to the possible inference that the residence was being used as for to facilitate a marihuana grow-op. The energy company forwarded information pertaining to the electricity use in the residence to the police.  Based on the information received, the police began an investigation that included observations of the residence.  What is more, the police requested and obtained additional information from the energy provider about the ongoing electricity use at the residence; and electricity use by comparator customers.  Eventually, the police applied for a search warrant for the residence.  Among other things, the police relied on the energy consumption information provided to them by the energy company; and a Justice of the Peace in Ontario issued the warrant.  Sometime later, the police executed the warrant and found many marihuana plants and packaged marihuana in the basement of the residence.  The results of the search warrant led to the accused being charged with production of, and possession for the purposes of trafficking in, marihuana and possession of the proceeds of crime.

Various positions were cogently advocated by the trial under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by the criminal defence lawyers.  They argued that the police in Ontario violated the accused’s persons rights under s. 8 of the Charter when they acquired energy consumption data from the energy provider without either their consent or prior judicial authorization, and used that information to further a criminal investigation that eventually led to the seizure of the marihuana.  The criminal defence lawyers further asserted that without the information from the energy provider there would have been no criminal investigation, no application for a search warrant and no seizure.  On this analysis, the police use of the accused’s energy consumption records to further their investigation constituted a breach of s. 8 of the Charter, which was sufficiently connected to the discovery of the marihuana to warrant the exclusion of the marihuana under s. 24(2) of the Charter from the trial proper.  Without the marihuana, in evidence at trial, the Crown’s case would fall.  Accordingly, this determination was critical to the strategy of the defence.

Defence counsel argued alternatively, that without the information unlawfully obtained by the police from the energy provider, the affidavit relied on by the police to obtain the search warrant did not contain sufficient grounds to justify the issuing of the warrant.  As such, it was posited that the critical search should be treated as a warrantless search; and presumptively unconstitutional under the common law (Regina v. Collins; and Hunter v. Southam).  The defence further argued that a warrantless search of the residence constituted a serious breach of s. 8, warranting exclusion under s. 24(2) of the marihuana seized during the search.

Apart from the s. 8 challenge based on energy provider’s sharing of the data with the police, the defence also challenged the constitutionality of various federal and provincial “privacy” laws and regulations governing Horizon.  The defence argued that these provisions contravened s. 8 of the Charter and were of no force and effect.  To the extent that the energy provider, a government actor, relied on these provisions in providing the energy consumption records to the police, Horizon’s conduct was unlawful and constituted a breach of s. 8, warranting the exclusion of the marihuana from evidence under s. 24(2).

The Ontario Court of Appeal resolved these issues in the follow manner.  The Court (regrettably) declined to decide the issue of whether it would violate s.8 of the Charter, if the hydro company had unilaterally volunteered the usage information to the police. The company and the police had jointly and informally targeted marijuana grow operations for some time; on the facts of this case, the police involvement began at the moment an employee of the hydro company noticed the suspicious usage pattern. The Court stated at paragraphs 34 to 36:

[34]      I have considerable difficulty with the submission that s. 8 is engaged if the police look at information in which an accused has a legitimate privacy interest, even if that information is brought to the police by an independent third party acting on its own initiative.  On that approach, s. 8 would be engaged if a “whistleblower” took confidential documents belonging to her employer to the police to demonstrate the employer’s criminal activity.  Must the police refuse to look at the documents to avoid violating the employer’s s. 8 rights?  As Duarte teaches, it is one thing to say that Canadian values dictate that the state’s power to decide when and how it will intrude upon personal privacy must be carefully circumscribed, and quite another to say that an individual’s private information is cloaked in the protection of s. 8 no matter how that information comes to the police.

[35]      I need not decide whether the appellants’ s. 8 rights would be implicated if Horizon, acting on its own initiative, volunteered the energy consumption data to the police.  The evidence establishes that the police and Horizon were acting together.  They had a mutual interest in finding marihuana grow operations.   Those operations were not only criminal, but also posed a significant fire hazard and a threat to Horizon’s legitimate interests.  Personnel at Horizon and the police developed an informal arrangement whereby Horizon would share energy consumption records with the police on an ongoing basis.  Horizon or the police might initiate the request to share the information if either had reason to believe that a customer of Horizon was operating a marihuana grow-op at a particular location.  Often when Horizon provided the initial information, the police would request additional data.  Horizon always complied.

[36]      Given the arrangement between Horizon and the police, the s. 8 analysis in this case should not depend on whether it was Horizon or the police who initiated the contact that led to the police obtaining the appellants’ energy consumption data from Horizon.  I think it is a fair reflection of the relationship between Horizon and the police to treat the police investigation in this case as beginning when Mr. Franco observed the suspicious pattern of energy consumption at the appellants’ residence and forwarded the data to the police.

In the Ontario Court of Appeal’s view, the usage of the hydro information was not highly personal or revealing of the accuseds’ biographical core of information. However, it did aver that the two accused possessed a subjective and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. The documents governing the relationship between the hydro company and its subscribers could not amount to a waiver of privacy interests under s.8, and in fact promised to maintain the privacy of subscribers’ personal information. The governing privacy legislation created no police powers of search or seizure.  Based on the foregoing the Court found that the warrantless search was unreasonable and breached s.8.

However, at paragraph 137 of the judgement, the Court of Appeal still admitted the evidence under Section s.24(2) upon conducting the requisite analysis under the common-law. Other than the warrantless search and seizure, there was nothing to criticize about the police conduct. The police acted on the state of the law as it then was and it was hard to levy such criticism against the police when they were acting on the relevant law at that time (i.e. Regina v. Gomboc, 2010 SCC 55 (CanLII), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 211). The impact on the accuseds’ Charter-protected interests was low as stated at paragraph 134 of the case where the court stated the following in relevant part

[134]   Second, the search must be regarded as warrantless because of the infringement of the appellants’ s. 8 rights occasioned by the police examination and use of the energy consumption data.  While the appellants had a reasonable expectation of privacy in that data, the data and the inferences available from it cannot be said to include core biographical information, or information that reveals intimate and personal details of a person’s lifestyle.  The information was capable of revealing one detail – the appellants were involved at a commercial level in the growing and sale of marihuana.  Further, for the reasons outlined above, the appellants’ reasonable expectation of privacy in the data was significantly attenuated.  I do not regard the police examination and use of the data as significantly undermining the values protected by s. 8 of the Charter.

In my view, several issues require canvasing in future cases.  One issue is whether the continuous use of this concerted energy provider/policing method would be held (and more heavily criticized by the Court) as valid and acceptable given the current state of the law within the scope of the s. 24(2) exclusionary remedy to determine whether the unlawfully seized ought to be excluded or included in the trial.

The issues involved in constitutional and Charter applications for the exclusion of unlawful or unreasonably obtained evidence are complicated.  An experienced lawyer ought to be consulted in making such an application.   Contact our offices at 403-585-1960 or 1-888-695-2211 for an initial consultation.

*** The opinions expressed in this Blog are not a substitute for full and through legal advice. It is not meant to be used as fulsome account of area of law discussed.  It is your responsibility to obtained a full legal opinion concerning your matter.