Tag Archives: Importation Charges

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

The Admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence Concerning the Cellphone Usage by Drug Traffickers. September 13, 2018  

Leave a comment

In Regina v. Vassel, 2018 ONCA 721, the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the accused’s appeal, set aside his conviction for second degree murder, and ordered a new trial.

Expert Evidence on cell phone and drug trafficking
Expert Evidence on cell phones and towers in Drugs Trafficking Cases

The Background Facts

The victim was a drug dealer who was shot and killed in the course of a drug deal gone bad. He was also robbed of a quarter-pound of marijuana during the incident.

The relevant facts as recited by the Court of Appeal were: (a)Husam Degheim was a drug dealer who sold marijuana (the ‘deceased’). A middleman proposed a deal. The deceased agreed.  The sale of one-quarter pound of marijuana was to take place near a shopping centre in Mississauga. The buyers and seller would meet there. A simple exchange. Money for drugs. Drugs for money. Or so the deceased thought. However, the buyers had different thoughts: (i) no money for drugs; (ii) no drugs for money; (iii) drugs for free; (iv) get the drugs and leave.  On the day of the indexed offences, the buyers and seller made their separate ways to the appointed place of sale. Three (3) vehicles parked next to one another. As things began to unfold, the deceased sensed that the simple exchange of drugs for money and money for drugs was not unfolding as it should. He started his vehicle. He intended to frustrate whatever the buyers had in mind. Regrettably, the deceased was unable to escape; and two (2) men approached his van, one of which had a gun. Degheim was shot dead while he sat in the driver’s seat of his van.  His wife was beside him in the passenger seat.  The drugs were stolen and everyone fled.  Mr. Vassel was arrested for the unlawful killing of Degheim. The operating Crown theory was that Mr. Vassel was the shooter.  He was convicted for second degree murder at his jury trial.

The Evidence Called at Trial

The Crown alleged that he was the shooter. A jury found him guilty of second degree murder.  The main issue at the trial was the identity of the shooter. The Crown Prosecutors called the following relevant evidence at the jury trial:

(a) the testimony of another participant in the robbery and shooting who identified the accused, Mr. Vassel, as the shooter and whose evidence was subject to a Vetrovec caution (see: Vetrovecv. The Queen, [1982] 1 SCR 811, 1982 CanLII 20 (SCC)– this is a caution that ought to be given to a jury generally when considering evidence from disreputable or unsavory witnesses.

(b) circumstantial evidence from several different witnesses, including evidence of post-offence conduct by the accused, which tended to link the accused to the robbery and shooting; and

(3) evidence of eyewitness descriptions of the shooter generally coinciding with the appearance of the accused.

Defences Raised: Alibi and Third Party Suspect

The criminal defence lawyers for Mr. Vassel posited alibi as a defence. That defence was supported by: (i) the testimony of the accused regarding his whereabouts and activities at the time of the shooting; (ii) cellphone triangulation evidence indicating that a cellphone belonging to the accused was away from the crime scene; and (iii) the testimony of a defence witness that further confirmed the accused’s claim that he was elsewhere at the time of the shooting. The other defence raised by counsel for the accused was to invite the jury to consider the possibility that either of two third parties was the shooter.  This was through the lens of a third party (3rd) suspect application.

Errors made by the Trial Court.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge committed several errors:

First, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence adduced by the Crown in cross-examination concerning cellphone usage by drug traffickers.  That evidence was objected to at trial on the basis that the said evidence failed to satisfy the Mohan(expert testimony) criteria at the first step or stage of the expert evidence analysis. That evidence should have been excluded on the basis that it was evidence of expert opinion adduced from a witness who was not properly qualified to give it.   On this issue, the Court of Appeal concluded:

“If the testimony the Crown adduced from Kristi Jackson in cross-examination consisted in whole or in part of expert opinion on a subject matter beyond the qualifications defence counsel had already established, it was incumbent on the Crown to qualify her as an expert on that subject matter. Crown counsel made no effort to do so before eliciting the opinions he sought, although he did some backfilling after the opinion was given. To the extent that Ms. Jackson’s evidence simply recounted what the Rogers billings revealed, it was not evidence of expert opinion. But to the extent that she offered the opinion about the character of the phone – “drug” vs. “family and friends” – her testimony reflected an opinion that she had not been properly qualified to give.”

Second, the Appeal Court found that the learned Trial Justice erred by erred in instructing the jury to consider a portion of the accused’s evidence with caution or particular care. Specifically on the use of the prior statements.

Third, the Justice had erred in law by failing to instruct the jury correctly about use of the exculpatory evidence provided by eyewitnesses to the robbery and shooting.

All the remaining grounds of the appeal were dismissed by the Court of Appeal. In dismissing those grounds, the court on review held as follows: (i) the trial judge did not err in failing to admit evidence of the accused’s prior out-of-court statements; and (ii) he did not err in refusing to allow the accused to re-open the defence case to respond to a breach of the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

Finally, the court refused to apply the curative provisoin s.686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.  A curative provisois considered under section s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code of Canada, and among other things, it allows an appellate court to consider whether to dimiss an appeal despite the errors of the lower court, if there were no miscarriage(s) of justice or the errors of the lower Court(s) were harmless.   In combination of the above noted issues, these errors were not harmless.  This is because the evidence against the appellant was not overwhelming. What is more, the main source was the testimony of a Vetrovec witness (see above). Finally, the jury deliberated over five (5) days and twice (2x) reported a deadlock. Based on the foregoing, this was not a case in which the curative proviso can be applied.

If you have been charged with a criminal offence and the matter is likey to proceed to a jury trial, it is important to ensure that sufficient and accurate representations are made on the Court record to that the correct jury charges are addressed.

Contact Mr. J. S. Patel, Barrister for a free initial thirty minute consultation regarding your matter.

Call 403-585-1960

blog

Does the right to a trial within a reasonable period of time under Section 11(b) of the Charter apply to re-trial? By J.S. Patel, Calgary Criminal Lawyer

Leave a comment
Section 11(b) of the Charter
Right to a trial within a reasonable period of time and the calculation of delay after a re-trial.

The right to have a trial within a reasonable period of time was reconsidered by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, and there have been many decision considering the principles that stem from that seminal case.   Recently, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in Regina v. MacIsaac,2018 ONCA 650 (CanLII), allowed the appeal of an accused and quashed his conviction of aggravated assault under the Criminal Code of Canada; and stayed the charges against him due to a violation of his rights under Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”).  This was based on the following time-line in that case.

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 in Regina 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.

Call 403-585-1960

blog

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? By J.S. Patel, Criminal Lawyer, 403-585-1960

Leave a comment

Informer Identity, Supreme Court of Canada Decision from BC Appeal Courts
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.

blog, Uncategorized

Refusing to provide breath sample after causing an accident resulting in death. Sentencing principles.

Leave a comment
Criminal Code Offence of Refusal to Provide a Breath Sample
Refusal to Provide a Breath Sample. Call Mr. J. S. Patel, Criminal Lawyer at 403-585-1960 for a consultation.

In Regina v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, a 6:1 majority of the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the accused’s appeal in part.  The Court set aside his 26-month sentence of imprisonment, imposed by the lower sentencing court, for the offence of refusing to provide a breath sample knowing that he caused an accident resulting in a death (Criminal Code, s.255(3.2)),and imposed a sentence of time served of just over ten (10) and a (1/2) half months.

That said, the circumstances of this case are unique as related recently on CBC news. The fatal accident was caused by a non-impaired driving error, and Mr. Suter refused to provide the police with a breath sample because he received bad legal advice. The lawyer he called from the police station expressly told him not to provide a breath sample, and Mr. Suter demurred. Added to this, sometime after the accident, Mr. Suter was attacked by a group of vigilantes who used a set of pruning shears to cut off his thumb. His wife was also attacked in a separate incident. He later pleaded guilty to the s.255(3.2) offence and the other charges were withdrawn.

The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of four (4) months’ imprisonment plus a thirty (30) month driving prohibition. The Judge found that the accident was caused by a non-impaired driving error. He also found that the accused’s refusal to provide a breath sample was the result of bad legal advice and was a mistake of law, which fundamentally changed the accused’s moral culpability. In addition, he noted several other mitigating factors, and also took into account the violent vigilante actions against the accused. However, the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal disagreed with this sentence.  The Appeal court increased the custodial portion of the sentence to twenty-six (26) months. The court found that: the deficient legal advice did not constitute a mistake of law and it could not be used to mitigate the accused’s sentence; the sentencing judge failed to consider, as an aggravating factor, that the accused chose to drive while distracted in the context of his health and pre-existing alcohol problems; and the sentencing judge erred by taking the vigilante violence into account.

The majority of the Supreme Court held that both the sentencing judge and the Court of Appeal committed errors in principle that resulted in the imposition of unfit sentences. The majority held as follows:

The Court of Appeal erred by effectively sentencing the accused for the uncharged offence of careless driving or dangerous driving causing death. A further error was committed by the Court of Appeal in failing to consider the vigilante violence suffered by the accused. The majority stated that vigilante violence against an offender for his or her role in the commission of an offence is a collateral consequence that should be considered — to a limited extent — when crafting an appropriate sentence.

What is more, the sentencing judge erred in finding that the accused was acting under a mistake of law when he refused to provide the police with a breath sample and that this factor fundamentally changed the accused’s moral culpability. He also erred in giving undue weight to the accused’s non-impairment as a mitigating factor.

Taking into account the attenuating factors in the case, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that a sentence of 15 to 18 months’ imprisonment would have been a fit sentence at the time of sentencing. The majority held, however, that in the circumstances of this case – the accused had already served just over 10 and a half months of his custodial sentence and had spent almost nine months waiting for the court’s decision – it would not be in the interests of justice to re-incarcerate the accused.

The final dissenting opinion came from Justice Gascon.  His decision was predicated on principles of deference towards the sentencing judge. Justice Gascon would have set aside the 26-month sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Court of Appeal and restored the four-month sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. Gascon J. held that there was no legal basis to justify appellate intervention with the initial sentence in the case.

If you have been charged with refusing to provide a sample of your breath, it is critical that you receive competent legal advice from the outset.  Mr. Patel is regarded as an excellent advocate for the rights of those charged with DUI related criminal code offences.  Call Mr. J. S. Patel, Criminal Lawyer at 403-585-1960 to arrange for a free initial consultation.

blog

“Bail Pending Appeal” and securing release from custody after a conviction has been entered: recent cases.

Leave a comment
Criminal bail hearings, Bail at Appeal,
Bail Hearings, Bail Pending Appeal, Criminal Bail Hearings, Urgent Criminal Defence Lawyers

What is Bail Pending Appeal?

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).
It cannot be said that the presence or absence of any one of those factors is determinative of the public interest, or of the eligibility of the appellant for release pending appeal: Regina v Gingras, 2012 BCCA 467 at para. 45, 293 CCC (3d) 100.

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 complete     Regina 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.  

 

blog

Removal or Withdrawal of Counsel from the Record for Ethical Reasons or Non-Payment of Fees, cases from 2018

Leave a comment
The Ontario Court of Appeal has recently ruled on the counsel’s ability to be withdrawn on counsel of record.  The starting point for any analysis stems from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Regina v. Cunningham, [2010] 1 SCR 331, 2010 SCC 10 (CanLII) where the Court laid out the following principles to guide the Courts when it hears applications by accused persons and counsel to be withdrawn as counsel of record:  

[47] If counsel seeks to withdraw far enough in advance of any scheduled proceedings and an adjournment will not be necessary, then the court should allow the withdrawal.  In this situation, there is no need for the court to enquire into counsel’s reasons for seeking to withdraw or require counsel to continue to act.

 [48] Assuming that timing is an issue, the court is entitled to enquire further.  Counsel may reveal that he or she seeks to withdraw for ethical reasons, non-payment of fees, or another specific reason (e.g. workload of counsel) if solicitor-client privilege is not engaged.  Counsel seeking to withdraw for ethical reasons means that an issue has arisen in the solicitor-client relationship where it is now impossible for counsel to continue in good conscience to represent the accused.  Counsel may cite “ethical reasons” as the reason for withdrawal if, for example, the accused is requesting that counsel act in violation of his or her professional obligations (see, e.g., Law Society of Upper Canada, r. 2.09(7)(b), (d); Law Society of Alberta, c. 14, r. 2; Law Society of British Columbia, c. 10, r. 1), or if the accused refuses to accept counsel’s advice on an important trial issue (see, e.g., Law Society of Upper Canada, r. 2.09(2); Law Society of Alberta, c. 14, r. 1; Law Society of British Columbia, c. 10, r. 2).  If the real reason for withdrawal is non-payment of legal fees, then counsel cannot represent to the court that he or she seeks to withdraw for “ethical reasons”.  However, in either the case of ethical reasons or non-payment of fees, the court must accept counsel’s answer at face value and not enquire further so as to avoid trenching on potential issues of solicitor-client privilege.

[49] If withdrawal is sought for an ethical reason, then the court must grant withdrawal (see C. (D.D.), at p. 328, and Deschamps, at para. 23).  Where an ethical issue has arisen in the relationship, counsel may be required to withdraw in order to comply with his or her professional obligations.  It would be inappropriate for a court to require counsel to continue to act when to do so would put him or her in violation of professional responsibilities.

 [50] If withdrawal is sought because of  non-payment of legal fees,  the court may exercise its discretion to refuse counsel’s request.  The court’s order refusing counsel’s request to withdraw may be enforced by the court’s contempt power (C. (D.D.), at p. 327).  In exercising its discretion on the withdrawal request, the court should consider the following non-exhaustive list of factors:

   
  1. whether it is feasible for the accused to represent himself or herself;
  2. other means of obtaining representation;
  3. impact on the accused from delay in proceedings, particularly if the accused is in custody;
  4. conduct of counsel, e.g. if counsel gave reasonable notice to the accused to allow the accused to seek other means of representation, or if counsel sought leave of the court to withdraw at the earliest possible time;
  5. impact on the Crown and any co‑accused;
  6. impact on complainants, witnesses and jurors;
  7. fairness to defence counsel, including consideration of the expected length and complexity of the proceedings;
  8. the history of the proceedings, e.g. if the accused has changed lawyers repeatedly.
  As these factors are all independent of the solicitor-client relationship, there is no risk of violating solicitor-client privilege when engaging in this analysis.  On the basis of these factors, the court must determine whether allowing withdrawal would cause serious harm to the administration of justice.  If the answer is yes, withdrawal may be refused.
In Regina v. Short, 2018 ONCA 1, the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a new trial for first degree murder where the trial judge refused to let defence counsel off the record six (6) prior to the commencement of the trial proper.   Defence counsel made representations to the presiding judge that indicating that there was a “loss of confidence” between the accused person and himself.  That loss of confidence was such that counsel could not discharge his duties under the Law Society Rules because he could not ethically proceed.  The second ground cited by the defence lawyer was that he was not being paid by the client.  Finally, the defence counsel argued that “Counsel took immediate steps following such a loss of confidence in the relationship to prepare and file the Notice of Application.”  Trial counsel made representations to the trial judge in which he briefly outlined the history of his relationship with the appellant; again, he indicated he had not been paid and referred to the possibility of a lawsuit for payment of the funds owed to him. Counsel also advised the trial judge that because of the non-payment, he had been unable to do things that should have been done in preparation for the second trial.     The trial court considered these explanations but further queried defence counsel on the merits of the representations made and the materials filed, which perciepirated the following response by the Defence Lawyer:    

…I am telling Your Honour that there are issues that have arisen that result in a loss of confidence between Mr. Short and I…

…[A]nd I can tell you as an officer of the court, this is not me putting on top of a non-payment of fees, a paragraph that says there’s a loss of confidence just to get an easy way out. This is probably the most difficult decision I have done. In this particular case I have, without disclosing anything, done everything I can to move this case forward. After the second trial I wiped much of my calendar clean to get this second trial as quick as possible. Obviously, there were communications between my client and I that allowed me to make the decision to go forward, financially and for another, another, another, abound of reasons. But I am telling the [sic] today, is that having no funds, and not being able to disclose to you the communications between the client and I, that I cannot represent Mr. Short going forward. [Emphasis added.]

    It is also critical to note that the trial Court did not query the accused person because it was concerned about the possibility that confidential information would be related to the Court that would not have otherwise be the case if the application had not been made. The Crown Prosecutor objected to the application made by defence counsel.  Oddly, the Crown advised the Court that only payment issues were cited to the preclusion of ethical issues, suggesting that the defence counsel was camouflaging the true nature and merits of the application.  In accepting the Crown’s argument and rejecting defence counsel’s application to be removed as counsel of record, it stated:   Given the weight and tenor of the balance of the affidavit dwelling on financial issues, I am forced to conclude that the reference to ethics in the adverb “ethically” has no basis in evidence. I am persuaded that [trial counsel’s] difficulties relate to payment of his accounts and not to an ethical dilemma.[Emphasis added.]  
The Court of Appeal in Ontario held the trial judge was obligated to accept the defence counsel’s representations (as stated above) that the solicitor-client relationship had broken down; and should have accepted his application to be removed as counsel of record.  The failure to do so culminated in an error that rendered the trial unfair and created a miscarriage of justice. What is more, the trial court also erred by failing to hear from the accused as to whether he wanted to continue with the lawyer.
If you require the assistance of a defence lawyer, call J.S. Patel at 403-585-1960. However, please note that it is not our practice to discuss matters with potential clients when you currently have a lawyer.    

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

Niagara Cheese Smuggler

Leave a comment

The “Niagara Cheese Smuggler”, a police officer in Ontario, sentenced to one-hundred and twenty (120) days in jail.

The accused/appellant was at the relevant times a police officer with the Niagara Regional Police. He was convicted of conspiracy to smuggle cheese into Canada from the United States without paying the required duties, and related charges (in contravention of the Customs Act), and of breach of trust by a public official (in contravention of the Criminal Code).  The scheme expanded and involved selling the cheese to local restaurants; it spanned three years. The constable never declared the cheese at the border, nor did he or the accused ever pay the required duty, which would have amounted to approximately $325,000

He was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for the smuggling offences and to one month’s imprisonment, consecutive, on the breach of trust offence.  InRegina v.  Heron, 2017 ONCA 441, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the accused’s conviction for conspiring to smuggle cheese into Canada from the United States (in contravention of the Customs Act) and of breach of trust by a public official (in contravention of the Criminal Code ).  The accused’s scheme expanded, over the course of three (3) years; and involved selling the cheese to local restaurants in the Buffalo (USA) area.  The police officer in Niaragara never declared the cheese at the border, and did he or the accused did not ever pay the required duty, which would have amounted to approximately $325,000. After his friend advised that the police officer that thought he was being followed, the accused ran a CPIC check on the licence plate of the vehicle operated by his friend.  The Court upheld the sentencing judge’s comments in this regard at para. 27: “I also agree that the appellant’s resort to CPIC with a view to protecting his criminal interests, as best he could, constituted a serious breach of public trust in the circumstances.”

The Court further added:

The trial judge recognized that the appellant was a first-time offender.  However, the appellant is also a police officer holding a public office.  The public is entitled to expect honesty and not corruption in the members of its police forces.  In this case, as the trial judge noted, the crime was significantly aggravated by the fact that the appellant conspired with Cst. Purdie to have Cst. Purdie use his credentials as a police officer to move across the border without scrutiny in order to facilitate the scheme.  I agree with the trial judge that:

It sends a very discouraging message to the public to let them know that police officers can get away with profiting from abuse of their credentials.

This case clearly illustrates the extent in which state power can be abused for self-motivated purposes; and of equal importance to ensure that you or any commercial entity is aware of the applicable laws when engaging in transnational business activities that can attract criminal liability; and potential jail terms.  In this case, the Court of the Appeal upheld the decision of the sentencing judge given the breach of the public trust.

In these types of cases our office provides written opinions at a fair cost.  To retain our services, contact J.S. Patel , Criminal Lawyer at 403-585-1960 or 1-888-695-2211 during our regular business hours.