The ReeveLaw Blog

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)

“Imagine for a moment that everybody’s front door has the same key. Now imagine that the police have a copy of that key, and can saunter into your living room to poke around your belongings while you’re out, and without your knowledge. If I’m not on the [Business Enterprise Server], I’m a dead chicken. That’s the reality of it, that’s what we don’t want the general public to know.”

The RCMP intercepted and decrypted over one million messages.

Source: Exclusive: How Canadian Police Intercept and Read Encrypted BlackBerry Messages

Justice of the Peace Lauzon has bravely opined that bail courts “have devolved into dysfunctional and punitive bodies. “The Canadian bail system has effectively been a pretrial punitive regime that’s inconsistent with the presumption of innocence and Charter protection. Sometimes those in custody must choose between fighting a bail hearing or agreeing to onerous conditions. They live with those conditions for months until trial and can end up with charges after breaching the conditions, which might not have been necessary in the first place. The police can release more people; the Crown attorneys cannot press for sureties and conditions to the extent that they probably do now. If bail is going to be set by justices of the peace, they have to be legally trained, as is required in Alberta.”

Source: JP is lauded for comments on bail system

 Do you think that someone who is able to deny bail and detain individuals pending trial as well as to incarcerate them for certain offences and issue warrants to search your house should at least have a legal eduction? In Ontario in order to become a J.P. you need at least 10 years of full-time work experience, paid or volunteer and a university degree or college equivalent in any field.

Critics argue that JPs, given power to deny bail and jail individuals pending trial, should have more legal training.

Source: Only five of 14 new justices of the peace have a law degree: Does that make sense? | Toronto Star

They’re trying to tell us and make us believe that if you send out any tweet, post, message or make other use of social media that is either unnecessary, unkind or untrue may be illegal. It’s not the law. That tweet was neither necessary, true or kind so by their very own standard the O.P.P. tweet does not pass the T.H.I.N.K. test and may therefore be illegal. Somebody should get arrested.

Source: Blog: Canadian police: ‘Unnecessary’ social media posts may be illegal

(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

(i) that is committed

(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and

(ii) that intentionally

(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,

(B) endangers a person’s life,

(C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,

(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or

(E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

Federal laws of canada

Source: Criminal Code

Now, police must only show their fear that the person “may” commit a ‘terrorism offence’. Police can arrest terror suspects and bring them before a judge, who can then issue a peace bond against them for up to 12 months. They can be required to surrender their passport, obey a curfew, participate in treatment programs, wear an electronic monitoring device, and abide by other restrictions. Although one has to agree to sign the peace bond, they face up to a year of prison time if they choose not to. “In particular, we’re concerned that by doing this, we’re normalizing these exceptional powers, and the case hasn’t been made that they’re needed.”

Some members of Canada’s legal community are criticizing a provision introduced by anti-terrorism Bill C-51 that gives police more leeway to arrest people who haven’t committed any crimes and bring them before judges who can restrict their liberty.

Source: Bill C-51 anti-terror arrests without a crime concern legal experts – Politics – CBC News

They are clearly explained in this short article. 

“Sentencing objectives and principles provide guidance, which are aimed at balancing rehabilitation and protection of society and reparation for harm. Jail terms are only imposed when less severe sanctions are not available in the circumstances, and the actual length of incarceration is affected by credit for time served and parole eligibility.”

Source: Reasonable Doubt: The Marco Muzzo case and an overview of sentencing in Canada | Georgia Straight Vancouver’s News & Entertainment Weekly

I often hear of criminal case decisions and go wtf? That is until I learn the details and then it all makes sense. If you’re wondering why Mr. Muzzo received a 10 year sentence, here is the source. Whether you end up agreeing or not at least you will understand how it came about.

Source: R. v. Muzzo, 2016 ONSC 2068