The ReeveLaw Blog

If you’re thinking of posting a nude or intimate pic or video of your girlfriend or ex without her permission, you should know that not only is it now a criminal offence it is also now a cause of civil action … which means she can sue you and that means that it can cost you a lot. In this case it’s costing the guy $142,000. Find some other way to get even or better yet, forget the drama and just move on.

It’s been four years since an Ontario woman, 18, found out her ex had uploaded an intimate video of her to a porn site, and her case has become an important first

Source: ‘Few things… are more private than a sex video’: $100,000 award in revenge porn case a Canadian first | National Post

In every criminal trial the onus is always on the Crown to prove guilt. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. If a person accused of committing a crime is found “not guilty” (whether by a Judge alone or a jury) it means (and only means) the Crown has not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is NOT a declaration of innocence. The two are very different things and the difference is important. For example, in the Forcillo case the finding of not guilty with respect to the first 3 gun shots should not be interpreted that the jury found the shooting to be justified. No such finding was open to the jury. The verdict means that the Crown did not prove Forcillo was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Period.

Whether it be witnesses who are mistaken or not truthful, police officers or Crown Attorneys seeking a promotion, tunnel vision, confirmation bias, junk science, prosecutions that are too vigorous …. “Embracing a false belief of perfection ignores the fact that innocent people have been, and continue to be, wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit. False guilty pleas happen too – innocent individuals often plead guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence in the hopes of returning to a “normal” life as quickly as possible.” Yes, it could and does happen here.

Why wrongful arrests, convictions and unfair trials could (and probably do) happen in Canada

Source: Reasonable Doubt: Making A Murderer – could it happen here? – NOW Toronto Magazine – Think Free

“The Conservatives were wicked smart in implementing their crime agenda. There is no better example of the Conservatives’ disdain for evidence-based criminal justice policy than mandatory minimum sentences. We are living with the sad results: overcrowded jails, massive costs, reduced public safety, and law after law ruled to be unconstitutional. Minimum sentences and harsh incarceration aren’t effective at reducing crime, and they do little to assist with rehabilitation. Mandatory minimum sentences result in the insidious transfer of discretion from judges to the Crown prosecutors — who have the discretion to drop a minimum sentence in exchange for a plea to a lesser charge. Crown discretion is not reviewable and it’s not transparent.”

Source: More than sunny ways needed to address mandatory minimums

This isn’t about guilt or innocence at this point, it’s about getting to that point. I don’t know if Avery or Dassey are guilty or not and that’s the point. Nobody does. Nobody can without there being a fair trial and this was definitely not a fair trial. For those who are engaged with the docu-serial “Making a Murderer” here is a good article analyzing the trial and the prosecution

Ken Kratz, special prosecutor in the Steven Avery case, is being blasted for his pretrial comments.

Source: Legal experts blast Avery prosecutor’s conduct

What do you think, mere window dressing or meaningful input? Here’s how it works. A petitioner drafts a 250 word plea for action or change and provides names and contact information for 5 – 10 supporters. They find an MP to ‘sponsor’ the petition and when signatures are verified the petition goes up on the site for 120 days. If it gains 500 or more supporters it is certified and presented to the House. The government has 45 days to respond, which could be a polite dismissal or it could result in a formal motion or private member’s bill.

Source: Home – E-petitions

Is a text message more like an email or a telephone conversation? Does it makes a difference if the text message is intercepted, or if it is read after it has already been delivered to the recipient? The principle that appears to be emerging now, according to the B.C. Court of Appeal, is that individuals can reasonably expect that police will not search their text messages without prior authorization, however all levels of courts continue to struggle with a determination of this issue.

Relatively recent advances in technology and surveillance powers raise new questions about expectations of privacy that an individual may have in regards to that technology. For example, courts hav…

Source: The Court » Blog Archive » BC Court of Appeal Upholds a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in a Text Message: R v Pelucco

Proof that an accused’s blood alcohol concentration exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood is an essential element in every ‘over 80’ prosecution. Two test results from a Intoxilyzer will be deemed “conclusive proof” of the accused’s blood/alcohol content at the time of driving unless it can be shown the instrument was “malfunctioning or operated improperly. The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that the defence is not entitled to an order requiring the disclosure of general information related to the history and performance of the particular Intoxilyzer 8000C device used thereby blocking any attempt to discover if the device was working properly.

Case: R. v. Jackson, 2015 ONCA 832 Keywords: Disclosure; ‘Over-80’; Stinchcombe; O’Connor; Subpoena Duces Tecum; Intoxilyzer 8000C; St‑Onge Lamoureux Synopsis: The Basic Facts A police officer sees David Jackson’s car drift into an adjacent traffic lane three times before inexplicably decelerating. The erratic behaviour of the car leads the officer to signal for Mr. Jackson …

Source: Supreme Advocacy LLP

“All of us know someone who has been charged with or convicted of a crime. Most of us don’t think this connection could cost us our employment but in the terrifying surveillance state we live in, you don’t have to commit a crime to be criminalized. You don’t even have to interact directly with people for their criminal records to be used to tarnish you. The government can accuse you of associating with a criminal, but not name him. Perhaps most shockingly, the government can suggest you are hanging out with a disreputable person, even as it uses the testimony of that apparently shady person against you. This is the consequence of racial profiling, carding, and draconian new laws like Bill C-51.”

The sad case of Ayaan Farah demonstrates that, in the terrifying surveillance state we live in, you don’t have to commit a crime to be criminalized

Source: In the security state, you’re innocent until investigated: Cole | Toronto Star

A conditional sentence (sometimes referred to as house arrest) is a jail sentence that is served within the confines of one’s residence. A person’s home becomes their jail. A breach of any conditions imposed will land them in real jail. People often consider this to be a soft touch, but in this case, Lori Douglas was Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queens Bench in Manitoba until removed by the Canadian Judicial Council. In her isolation she gained some insight: “I got more and more depressed. I was stuck in the house. I had nothing,” says Douglas, noting her situation changed her perspective on the idea of house arrest for criminals rather than jail. “Got to tell you, I’ll never criticize that again. It felt like a prison.” Douglas says she’d experience panic every morning. She relied on friends to help her get through the day. And if she could make it to noon, the panic would go away. Without that support, she says, she would have committed suicide. “I lost my job. I lost my life. I lost my reputation. If it hadn’t been for my son, there would have been little reason to keep on.”

Source: Behind the headlines