The ReeveLaw Blog

As you’ve probably heard, this Alberta couple have been convicted by a jury of failing to provide the necessities of life to their 19 month old child for failing to get readily available medical assistance for him as he needlessly died of meningitis. As tragic, controversial and difficult the situation is, as a lawyer I would have strongly advised the father David against his responsive posting on Facebook. After the conviction and before sentencing he posted: “Dear Jury, I deeply Love each one of you and appreciate the tremendous sacrifice that you have made over the last 8 weeks. I only wish that you could’ve seen how you were being played by the crowns deception, drama and trickery that not only led to our key witnesses being muzzled, but has also now led to a dangerous precedent being set in Canada. The flood gates have now been opened and if we do not fall in line with parenting as seen fit by the government, we all stand in risk of criminal prosecution. Remember what the crown prosecutors closing remarks were to combat the fact that the ill equipped ambulance resulted in Ezekiel’s brain death. She communicated that this was not about him dying, but rather about whether or not his life was endangered at any point due to our actions. How many parents have lost children for various reasons, all of which could be concluded that the child’s life was endangered and that the parents should have been able to foresee it? How many parents have had close calls to losing a child, wherein it could be concluded that the child’s life was endangered and the parents should have been able to foresee it? Whether medical attention is sought or not and your child lives, it is of no consequence. It is only about whether or not it can be proven that at some point your child’s life was endangered, and if so you may find yourselves in the same boat as us. The flood gates have now been opened and my main concern is no longer for Collet and I, but rather for Canadian’s as a whole. May Heaven help us all!” I don’t hear any acceptance of responsibility or expression of remorse. What do you think should be the primary sentencing principles here?

David and Collet Stephan loved their son Ezekiel all the way to a preventable death, writes Rosie DiManno.

Source: Parents were reckless, even in their love for son: DiManno | Toronto Star

Source: London Lawyer Publicizes “Illegal” Arrest By London Police | (CFPL AM) AM 980

As the Supreme Court repeatedly shows ex-PM Harper had no respect for our constitution this ruling exposes that Harper had no respect for the fundamental principles underlying our democracy such as the rule of law and due process. It will continue to take a long time to dismantle the destructive effects of 10 years of that man’s hubris.

Canadian court watchers have become accustomed to bloodless language from the presiding judge in a criminal trial, but Justice Charles Vaillancourt tossed aside that conventional wisdom in his ruling issued Thursday.

Source: Mike Duffy trial: 6 notable lines from the judge’s ruling – Politics – CBC News

Before a client enters a plea of guilty the criminal code requires that one of the things an accused person must understand is that ultimately the sentence imposed is up to the Judge, not the Crown or the defence lawyer. That scares some clients, however a Judge is not to reject a joint submission on sentence made by the Crown and defence unless there are cogent reasons for doing so. “Cogent reasons may include, among others, where the sentence is unfit, unreasonable, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or be contrary to the public interest. It must be more than an opinion on the part of the sentencing judge that the sentence would not be enough (and not just) because the sentencing judge wants to “send this guy to jail””. Here is a link to the actual decision: http://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbca/doc/2016/2016mbca34/2016mbca34.html

Case: R v Giesbrecht, 2016 MBCA 34 (CanLII) Keywords: Fraud; Joint Sentencing Recommendation; Prearranged Funeral Services Act, CCSM c F200; R v. Sharpe (KD), 2009 MBCA 50 (CanLII); R. v. Sinclair (E.J.), 2004 MBCA 48 (CanLII); s. 742.3(1) of the Criminal Code Synopsis: The Appellant, Mr. Harvey Giesbrecht, owns a funeral home in Beausejour; enters …

Source: Supreme Advocacy LLP

“We know it is impossible to arrest our way out of this problem,” So why are they going to keep arresting, criminalizing, fining and jailing people in the next year for something that will be legal this time a year from now??

We know it is impossible to arrest our way out of this problem,”

Source: Federal marijuana legislation to be introduced in spring 2017, Philpott says – Politics – CBC News

Since we deal with a lot of domestic disputes I can say that these words are just as true in criminal law as in family law. “A father thought it would be a good idea to present nude pictures of his ex-spouse in a bid to persuade the judge she was a bad, neglectful mother.” The Judge found “the nude photographs and salacious texts submitted by the father merely confirm what I would suspect of most other adults on this planet: The mother has a sex life. Big deal.” and did not grant the father’s request.

Any judgment that starts with the words “do nude pictures of parents help judges decide who should get custody?” is going to be a good one.

Source: FindLaw Canada | Judge unimpressed with ‘50 Shades of Grey’ nude photos in nasty custody battle

Now that (ex)Constable James Forcillo has been found guilty of attempting to murder Sammy Yatim with a firearm he is facing one of Harper’s mandatory minimum sentences of at least 4 years in jail. He says the mandatory minimum sentence was “designed to penalize those involved in criminal activity and not police officers trying to protect the public” so it shouldn’t apply to him. Now even the police don’t like MMSs. What do you think? What do you think Justice Then will think?

Source: Mandatory minimums not constitutional?

Our present criminal code is a mess. “minor tinkering, poorly written private members’ bills, massive omnibus legislation, and opportunistic political reaction” has made it so. It is so convoluted and complicated that even the best criminal lawyers, prosecutors and Judges can’t make sense of it all. We need to create a new independent Law Commission (eliminated in 2006 by Harper) to do a long overdue comprehensive review. A complete overhaul is necessary. A good brief article by Spratt.

Source: The Criminal Code is a weighty book — literally

“Parliament revised this regime in 2009. It did not do away with enhanced credit, but it capped that credit at one and a half days for each day of pre-sentence custody. Parliament also — which brings us to the issue in this case — removed a sentencing court’s discretion to give any enhanced credit to offenders for pre-sentence custody, if they were denied bail primarily on the basis of their criminal record. I conclude that the provision infringes s. 7 of the Charter (right to life, liberty and security), and is not justified under s. 1 of the Charter.”

Source: R. v. Safarzadeh‑Markhali – SCC Cases (Lexum)

The S.C.C. has been busy today striking down PM Harper’s unconstitutional excesses. “We are asked to decide the constitutionality of a one-year mandatory minimum sentence for a controlled substances offence. I conclude that this provision, while permitting constitutional sentences in a broad array of cases, will sometimes mandate sentences that violate the constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment. Insofar as the law requires a one-year sentence of imprisonment, it violates the guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment in s. 12 of the Charter and is not justified under s. 1.”

Source: R. v. Lloyd – SCC Cases (Lexum)