The ReeveLaw Blog

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

A couple of decades ago our government closed local jails and opened superjails. There has been an ongoing seemingly endless labour dispute which results in many lockdowns. “The facility can be locked down simply because one jail guard calls in sick. The inmate is holed up with another inmate not of his choosing, confinement for 24 hours a day, caused by lack of jail staff, was degrading and an outrage to standards of decency.”

Source: Speaker’s Corner: End the jail lockdown crisis

THE SKYPE SEX SCAM – This is posted as a PSA. Be aware and be careful out there.

Arab men are being targeted by blackmailers who trick them into them masturbating on webcams – then make them pay for it.

Source: The Skype sex scam – a fortune built on shame – BBC News

Are Judges arrogant? Sometimes. Is it a problem? Well, when it occurs it is. The bottom line is: ” judicial arrogance is wrong. It is a wrong that gets committed too often and called out too little. Judges need to strive for humility – to recognize it as a virtue.” The article is an interesting consideration of it.

By: Alice Woolley PDF Version: The Problem of Judicial Arrogance In her remarkable new book Life Sentence (Doubleday Canada, 2016), Christie Blatchford describes the Canadian judiciary as “unelecte…

Source: The Problem of Judicial Arrogance |

CROWN’S CROSS-EXAMINATION LEADS TO RETRIAL – I believe this may be the third case recently. It’s what happens when it’s forgotten that “Crown counsel have an obligation not simply to secure convictions but to ensure that justice is done, and so they are rightly held to a high standard of conduct,”. A FAIR trial is the hallmark of a proper prosecution.

Source: Crown’s cross-examination leads to retrial

#53

The law requires that we ensure that any client who pleads guilty to an offence is aware that it is the Judge who sets the sentence, not the lawyers. When the Crown and defence present a joint submission on sentence can a Judge go above or below it? The SCC says the answer is pretty much NO unless doing so would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. “The test he should have applied is whether the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest. Under the public interest test, a trial judge should not depart from a joint submission on sentence unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest.”

The link below provides a summary of the court’s decision.

Source: Email Template

“We’ll put this simply to avoid further confusion: stringing together nonsensical bits of pseudo-legalese cannot save you from succumbing to the rules and regulations of the Facebook gods. You can’t change the terms of a legal agreement with a Facebook status update. Stop it.”

This Facebook hoax has been meaningless for FOUR years. STOP!

Source: Stop Posting That Facebook Privacy Notice — Your Pseudo-Legalese Means NOTHING! | Above the Law

“Our wealthy Bay Street brothers and sisters laugh at our modest hourly rates and require smelling salts when told about payments under the legal aid system. Criminal defence lawyers oil the machinery of justice, and we pay for that privilege. Or so my fax machine tells me.”

Source: Defence counsel hit hardest by antiquated court processes