The ReeveLaw Blog

It is a written statement admissible as evidence in a transaction or a proceeding by an act of legislature. The purpose of affidavit is to replace, where appropriate, expensive or impossible personal testimony with the most reliable alternative: written statements made in policy-compliant circumstances as verified by a trusted party.

Can a robot administer oaths?

Not until legislatures allow this. But technically yes. There are two kinds of legal tech. One does not require the state’s approval. The other one does. And, as is usually the case with lawyers, there is a grey area. Let’s talk about the grey area f

Source: Can a robot administer oaths? – Slaw

Like everything else policing is adopting the advent of technology, for good or bad. As defence lawyers we need to challenge and test the veracity of new technology. “Often, it’s enforcement agencies and not the companies themselves that are engendering public distrust. Police may be enthusiastic about adopting new technology, but they’re usually not as forthcoming in disclosing how it’s being used. They’re trying to sell into an aspect of government that is very, very secretive, which isn’t very helpful for the public’s trust in law and order.”

At home and abroad, Canadian companies are using new technologies to help police forces solve cold cases and deal with 21st century threats.

Source: How a wave of startups are bringing law enforcement into the digital age

In an effort to stem the tide police consider charging dealers with manslaughter. Is this approach likely to help? “Given that the “very serious penalties” that can accompany trafficking convictions have not stemmed the drug trade, it is unclear whether manslaughter charges will be a greater deterrent. These are not solutions that are really going to help the terrible problems that are going on with fentanyl”

Police are looking to treat fatal overdoses as homicides, arguing that holding drug dealers responsible for deaths could act as a deterrent

Source: Police move to treat fentanyl overdoses as homicides – The Globe and Mail

We used to have the Law Reform Commission of Canada that constantly reviewed our laws and made recommendations. They were a significant force in shaping our laws until the Conservative government cut funding in 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Commission_of_Canada

Now not only is a comprehensive review necessary it will be an “enormous task”. It’s rather like not repairing any roads anywhere in the country for 10 years.

Criminal justice experts are calling on the government to overhaul Canada’s Criminal Code, arguing it is riddled with outdated “zombie” laws and confusing, inconsistent language.

Source: Criminal Code filled with dated ‘zombie’ laws, experts warn justice minister

Acting on numerous complaints 72 people (mainly men) were arrested last Friday and charged with gross indecency and engaging in sexual activity in Marie Curtis Park. It is being decried as the homophobic old school morality. Are they suggesting that the police would not similarly act on numerous complaints of heterosexual gross indecency and sexual activity in public at all times of the day?

Source: Toronto is enraged after police sting in local park

REPEALING THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE OF ANAL INTERCOURSE – Although previously ruled unconstitutional it remains in the criminal code. Here’s the problem: “Section 159 of the Criminal Code currently says that anyone who engages in anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence — facing up to 10 years in prison — or an offence punishable on summary conviction. There are exceptions for heterosexual married couples and consenting adults of either sex over the age of 18, so long as there are only two of them and the activity takes place without anyone else in the room. The age of consent for heterosexual sex is 16 years of age, meaning that a common sexual act between a young gay couple is criminalized while a different sexual act engaged in by a straight couple of the same age is not.

The law currently says anyone who engages in anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence — facing up to 10 years in prison — or an offence punishable on summary conviction

Source: Ottawa to repeal section of Criminal Code on anal intercourse – The Globe and Mail

Been there. Tried that. Twice. Didn’t work. What’s the plan now?

Source: Lightning strikes thrice?

The new regulations will come into full effect on Jan. 1, 2017. They feature an explicit ban on the use of race or place (i.e., being in a “high-crime area”) as a stand-alone justification for carding. Officers will be required to inform individuals that they have the right to know why they are being stopped and whether they have a legal obligation to speak with the officer(s). The regulations will also require officers to provide a receipt of the interaction, and they mandate that officers indicate the perceived racial background of the civilians they card.

Source: Speaker’s Corner: Carding regulations will shape legal landscape

PM Harper abolished pardons and replaced them with “record suspensions”, quadrupled the fees to apply and almost doubled the waiting period before application, made it all retroactive and effectively trashed all pardon applications in process. The retroactive aspect and increased waiting period is being challenged as unconstitutional. The Liberal government is opposing this. We’ll wait for the result of this first challenge.

Source: Challenge to hinge on pardon waiting period

IMPLIED THREAT OF VIOLENCE – You may not have made any actual verbal threat but that doesn’t mean there was no threat of violence. It may be found in the nature of the offence. “No actual victim was threatened or realized. There was no robbery, violence or actual attempted violence. Nonetheless, the court held that violence is inherent in robbery and thus there was an implied threat. This approach is consistent with an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal where despite a lack of actual threats or violence the court accepted the inherent and implied threats involved in the conduct of the accused involving contact with his wife in breach of recognizance conditions.”

The purpose of s. 109 of the Criminal Code and the nature of breaking and entering justified the lifetime weapons prohibition in the accused’s sentence.

Source: Mack’s Criminal Law Bulletin – Weapons Prohibitions | WestlawNext Canada Portal