The ReeveLaw Blog

The judge in the Ghomeshi case is well-regarded Western alumni who comes from a long line of lawyers

Source: Ghomeshi judge William B. Horkins: The man on the bench | Toronto Star

When one ventures into the risky practices of rough sex, dominance and submission, Master/slave, “non-consensual consent” and other non-mainstream sexual activities involving such acts as spanking, whipping, caning, restraint, edge play, to name a few, which will likely result in marks, bruising, cuts and other physical manifestations, it seems like a good idea, particularly with strangers, to discuss the boundaries of consent before the act or at least obtain confirmation of consent after the fact.  As consent is exclusively in the realm of the mind and can sometimes be transient or the perception of it change over time it is a prudent practice for one to obtain proof of what the person was thinking or feeling about the activity at the time.  Written statements in the form of emails, text messages and letters are valuable for this purpose.

We sometimes get careless in our use of terminology which discloses our prejudices. In law a victim is not a victim unless and until a judge or jury decides, after hearing evidence, that a crime has been committed. Before then a person is a complainant or an accuser but not a victim. If we start from the presumption of victimization the entire fact finding process is perverted or nullified. “Why should a sex assault victim be treated with suede gloves and not, say, Const. James Forcillo, who shot at a teenager nine times and killed him? Because you’re pre-assuming the virtue of the accuser — exclusively due to the charge — and the guilt of a most unsavory defendant. Some of us still wait for verdicts. Quaint, I know.”

Vigorous questioning like that in the Ghomeshi trial isn’t just allowed, it’s essential to the trial’s authenticity, regardless of the charges.

Source: Sex assault accusations deserve scrutiny equal to any other: DiManno | Toronto Star

The allegations against Ghomeshi involved hair pulling, punching and choking. There were no allegations of touching of primary or secondary organs or penetration in any sense. So why was he charged with sexual assault? Because they were on a “date” or kissed. The definition is vague and broad. The sexual aspect is established if, objectively viewed, the assault is committed in circumstances of a sexual nature such that the sexual integrity of the person is violated. The circumstances include the part of the body touched, the nature of the contact, the situation in which it occurred, the words and gestures accompanying the act. The intent, purpose or motive of the person committing the act including sexual gratification will be relevant.

See the link below to the case of R. v. Chase decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1987 for the definition.

Source: CanLII – 1987 CanLII 23 (SCC)

It’s not the Liberals’ vow to legalize pot that is creating chaos it’s the lack of action that’s causing confusion. Tobacco is regulated by the federal government. Alcohol is regulated on the provincial level. Marijuana can probably be effectively regulated on the municipal level which is exactly what is happening now. As the government dithers a de facto system of distribution is becoming established.

Law-enforcement officials urge Trudeau government to remind Canadians marijuana remains illegal

Source: Liberals’ vow to legalize pot creating chaos, police say – The Globe and Mail

The Ghomeshi trial is really no different than any other usual, ordinary, run of the mill historic sexual assault trial except that the incessant pervasive glare of the media spotlight is turning it into a disaster for women victims’ rights advocates. The problem with delayed complaint is that it excludes the possibility of collecting any corroborating physical evidence and the possibility of recording details of the incident when those details are fresh in the witness’s mind. The only evidence that remains is a memory that has been subjected to the natural processes of forgetfulness and reconstruction. It also calls for a reasonable explanation for the delay. If we take it outside of the emotion, myths and agendas surrounding sexual assault, what would be your thoughts if someone, for the first time accused you of breaking into their house and stealing their jewelrey 12 years ago?

Ghomeshi has been silent through his trial, but his recollections have guided his defence to evidence the Crown and its witnesses seemed not to know about.

Source: What accusers forget, Jian Ghomeshi remembers: Menon | Toronto Star

In the U.K. it’s proposed that “the bosses of any company that warns its members that British agencies are monitoring them face up to two years in prison. The proposed legislation would require tech firms to store users’ data for up to twelve months, including a record of every internet site visited, and allow government agencies unfettered access to the data.” It also will require “that companies weaken the encryption on messaging services such as WhatsApp and iMessage to enable agencies to evesdrop on conversations.”

Source: Tech companies face criminal charges if they notify users of UK government spying – TechSpot

Now that we understand that the “evil weed” does not result in reefer madness, is not a gateway drug, should never have been illegal anyway and that convictions have caused incalculable harm, while we wait for our government for formally recognize this the Attorney General for Canada should issue a policy directive that they will no longer prosecute charges of simple possession and Parliament should pass a law that everyone with a criminal record for simple possession will be granted a full pardon upon request.

A former police chief in charge of legalizing marijuana is like David Suzuki in charge of oil pipelines.

Source: Why is marijuana legal in Vancouver and not Saskatoon? | Saskatoon StarPhoenix

Every person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be released upon reasonable bail conditions unless, in this case, the Crown can establish that his detention is necessary to 1) ensure his attendance in court or 2) there is a substantial likelihood he will commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice if released or 3) to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. Mr. Muzzo could have applied for release at any time and probably would have been successful but chose not to. In forming an opinion about his release, keep in mind that he will be out of custody for less than 3 weeks and during that time will be bound by numerous conditions.

Muzzo also pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a vehicle causing bodily harm to the children’s grandmother and great-grandmother.

Source: Marco Muzzo granted bail after guilty plea in impaired-driving deaths of 3 children, grandfather | Toronto Star