Tag Archives: Drug Lawyers in Edmonton

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

Dangerous Driving Under the Criminal Code of Canada and the Fault Element (Mens Rea)

Leave a comment
Carless Driving vs. Dangerous Driving
Dangerous Driving Under the Criminal Code of Canada

By way of a simple and general summary of legal information, a restatement of the elements of the dangerous driving offence was provided in Regina v. Beatty, 2008 SCC 5, and Roy, 2012 SCC 26, with a significantly greater emphasis placed on the mental element of the offence and criminal blameworthiness. In Beatty, above, while confirming that the offence does not require subjective mens rea, Charron J., on behalf of the majority, provided for the application of the “modified objective test”, per Regina v. Hundal, 1993 CanLII 120 (S.C.C.), so as to ensure that punishment is imposed only upon those with “a blameworthy state of mind”. To that end, Charron J. held that the assessment of whether the accused’s conduct is a “marked departure” from the norm, is not an aspect of the actus reus, but of the mens rea. Accordingly, an evidentiary burden does not shift to the accused from the Crown’s presentation of a case of objectively dangerous driving – the actus reus. A further determination must be made whether the Crown has proven that the conduct involved a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the  circumstances that is deserving of punishment – the mens rea. Moreover, it remains open to the defence to raise a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person in the position of the accused would not have been aware of the risk posed by the manner of driving or, alternatively, would not have been able to avoid creating the danger.

In Reginav. Laverdure, 2018 ONCA 614(RD), the Ontario Court of Appeal(“OCA”) allowed the accused’s conviction appeal for dangerous driving causing death and ordered a new trial.  The main reason for over-turning the conviction was due to the trial judges failure to analyze the fault component of the legal test.

In that case accused struck and killed a pedestrian who had crossed the road after attending a hockey game at a local arena in Pembroke, Ontario. At appeal, the accused argued that the trial judge made unreasonable findings of fact and that he erred in his analysis of the elements of the offence.  The test for dangerous driving under the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Code”) is stated in Section 249 of the Code.; and the legal test has been considered in Reginav. Roy, 2012 SCC 26 (CanLII), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 60, at para. 30; R. v. Reynolds, [2013] ONCA 433, at para. 18.

The court upheld the trial judge’s findings of fact with respect to the accused’s driving speed. Evidence from the accident reconstructionist, several witness, as well as forensic evidence supported the conclusion that he was driving “at a high rate of speed on a city street” (at para. 17). The court further upheld the finding that the circumstances as they existed on the road at the time (large groups of pedestrians crossing the road and walking along it) called for drivers to slow down and proceed cautiously.

It was open to the trial judge to find that the actus reus was established; and that he did not reason backwards from the accident (at paras. 20-22). However, while the Trial Judge correctly identified the proper test for the mens reaof the offence, the trial judge failed to identify “how and in what way” the accused’s driving went beyond negligence or carelessness to a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would show in the same position. This was not a case where the manner of driving was so egregious as to satisfy the fault element without any additional analysis of the evidence. At paragraph 25, the Court of Appeal stated:

Rather, the trial judge appears to have concluded that the act of driving dangerously necessarily constituted what he referred to as a “marked departure from what a reasonable person would expect in the circumstances”.  He did not identify the “how and in what way” the appellant’s driving went beyond negligence or carelessness and reached the level of a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would show in the same position.

If you have been charged with a Criminal Code Offence under Section 249 (i.e. Dangerous Operation of the Motor Vehicle), call Mr. J.S. Patel, Criminal Lawyer, for a free consultation.  

Call 403-585-1980. 

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

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.