The ReeveLaw Blog

The act was intended to target proceeds generated by organized crime groups but it’s being used for much more. Toronto police detained a man and found $8,740 cash on him. Although he had no criminal record and no charge was laid they took his money and applied to have it forfeited as proceeds of crime. The government tried to have forfeited the parents $800,000 house because their son who lived there was convicted of drugs and weapons charges. They tried to seize a person’s sailboat who was charged with impaired boating. Thank goodness we have Judges to stop this government theft.

Source: Judge slams application to seize cash from man

Parole board members do not retry offenders. Instead, they fess out whether the inmate presents any risk of reoffending. Can she or he be returned safely into the community and, if so, when and with what restrictions?

If you get it wrong and release someone from prison, someone could be hurt, or worse — and you, as the decision-maker, will be held accountable, publicly

Source: Making parole decisions is one tough job | Toronto Star

“Under s. 32(1) and (2) of the LLA, a person may not drive a vehicle with liquor in it unless they have a licence or permit to do so, or if the liquor is unopened or is packed in baggage that is fastened closed “and is not otherwise readily available to any person in the vehicle”. Justice Botham concluded that while the officer was acting within his lawful authority when he searched the interior of the car, he exceeded that authority once he looked into the bag in the trunk of the car. There is a heightened privacy interest in the trunk of a vehicle because it is hidden from view.”

This month’s newsletter discusses a recent case holding that authority to search a car under Ontario’s Liquor Licence Act does not extend to the trunk.

Source: Police Powers | Liquor Licence Act | WestlawNext Canada Portal

 – Ontario Court Justice Robert Selkirk, in R. v. Racine, refused to accept a guilty plea for possession of marijuana, saying: “I recall distinctly the Prime Minister in the House of Commons saying it’s going to be legalized. I’m not going to be the last judge in this country to convict somebody of simple possession of marijuana. . . .You can’t have the Prime Minister announcing it’s going to be legalized and then stand up and prosecute it. It just can’t happen. It’s a ludicrous situation, ludicrous.” Selkirk recognized the reality; there is indeed an urgent need to rush into decriminalization. Young men are in jail because of pot, people lose their jobs because they were caught smoking a joint, and police use marijuana as a pretext to detain and search. In short, it is not marijuana that destroys lives but its criminalization.

Source: The war on drugs blindly marches on

Determining a just and appropriate sentence for criminal conduct is an art. Within prescribed statutory limits a Judge is required to consider the general principles and objectives of sentencing, the circumstances of the particular offence and the particular offender, aggravating and mitigating factors, statutory parameters, sentences imposed upon similar offenders for similar offences, the impact upon the victim as well as many other factors. It is this flexibilty within prescribed parameters which permits just, humane and appropriate sentences to be crafted by trained, skilled Judges.

In Canada, judges are bound by strict sentencing laws. Legal columnist Samantha Gold takes a look at them

Source: The Principles Behind the Bench: An Insight into Canada’s Sentencing Laws – Forget The Box

The NDP is introducing an opposition day motion on Monday calling on the House of Commons to recognize there is a contradiction in giving people criminal records for something the government has said should not be a crime. One way to decriminalize it without having to wait for legislation would be to have the Attorney General issue a directive to its Federal Prosecutors ordering them to refrain from proceeding with prosecution for simple possession offences. It makes no sense to continue criminalizing people today for something we know will not be criminal tomorrow.

Source: NDP calls on Trudeau’s Liberals to immediately decriminalize marijuana – National | Globalnews.ca

Source: Here’s The Powerful Letter The Stanford Victim Read To Her Attacker – BuzzFeed News

The criminal offence of bestiality has been with us for a long time. Let’s be clear that the Supreme Court of Canada has not recently said that sex with animals is okay. Rather it noted that the historic legal meaning of bestiality, as defined by Parliament, specifically requires an act of penetration. It refused to redefine the offence as that would be re-writing the Criminal Code which is the exclusive domain of Parliament, which apparently is considering the issue.

It is not the role of jurists to broaden the definition to include other acts, the country’s top court ruled Thursday

Source: Supreme Court clarifies Canada’s bestiality law with ruling – The Globe and Mail

Words matter. Words are important. Words have meaning. When we had the specific criminal offence of rape in Canada it was defined as non-consensual sexual intercourse. The word rape is presently defined by the FBI as “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” Every definition of the word rape involves penetration. On the other hand the criminal offence of sexual assault is much more broadly defined to be an assault committed in circumstances of a sexual nature such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated. The part of the body touched, the nature of the contact, the situation in which it occurred, the words and gestures accompanying the act and all other circumstances surrounding the conduct, including threats, which may or may not be accompanied by force will be relevant. While sexual assault includes rape not every sexual assault is rape.  One cannot be a survivor of rape unless that person has actually been raped. We do everybody a disservice when we refer to any and every form of sexual assault as a rape.  Let’s use our words carefully, as they were meant to be.