The ReeveLaw Blog

Forty-three years after the LeDain Commission said laws against simple possession should be abolished, recognition of pot’s reality has arrived. However, legalization is of so little importance it is relegated to the back shelf. “There’s no timeline on lifting the prohibition. Other Liberal justice issues – notably the implementation of physician-assisted suicide, the inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, and criminal justice reforms – are more urgent priorities.” When they get around to it the government itself will probably become the “pusherman” and monopolize distribution. “In Ontario, Premier Kathleen Wynne suggests provincial liquor stores could start retailing government-certified – and taxed – ganja.” Trafficking otherwise, by your established local supplier/friend, will remain a crime.

Justin Trudeau says his government will do what his father’s would not by legitimizing simple possession of recreational marijuana and regulating its sale, like alcohol

Source: Public hearings, two Trudeaus and ‘reefer madness’ fear-mongering: The long war over marijuana legalization | National Post

Is it sexual abuse of animals? Does the law exist to protect the rights of animals? Is the animal a victim? That’s what our Supreme Court is being asked to decide. “What makes this an interesting animal rights case is that the Court is also being asked to consider the effect on the family dog.” If the animal is considered to be a victim does that raise it to the status of a person? Will the services of the Victim Witness Assistance Program will be made available? Will animal services and protection organizations have access to the funds collected as mandatory Victim Fine Surcharges? Will animal victims enjoy the rights and benefits afforded to human victims of criminal acts? Can the accused by sued on behalf of the animal? Let’s see what the court has to say.

Essentially, the top court is being asked if non-human animals enjoy the right not to be sexually abused.

Source: Supreme Court bestiality case could boost animal rights: Walkom | Toronto Star

“Hundreds of innocent people have been convicted by bad science, permitting an equal number of perpetrators to go free. None of the traditional forensic techniques, such as hair comparison, bite-mark analysis or ballistics analysis, qualifies as rigorous, reproducible science. An overwhelming majority of wrong decisions resulted from flawed science-related procedures, such as eyewitness errors, faulty lab procedures and false confessions. But it’s not just forensics: bad science is marbled throughout our legal system, from the way police interrogate suspects to the decisions judges make on whether to admit certain evidence in court.” A particularly offensive example is the false confession inducing Reid method of interrogation.

Source: Time to clean all the junk science out of our courtr…

Personally I prefer a balanced approach that includes the concept of reasonableness over extreme, inflexible “zero tolerance”. Here is the present state of the law defined by our Supreme Court in 2004. “Section 43, properly construed, is not unduly vague or overbroad; it sets real boundaries and delineates a risk zone for criminal sanction and avoids discretionary law enforcement.  The force must have been intended to be for educative or corrective purposes, relating to restraining, controlling or expressing disapproval of the actual behaviour of a child capable of benefiting from the correction.   Section 43 does not extend to an application of force that results in harm or the prospect of harm.  It provides parents and teachers with the ability to carry out the reasonable education of the child without the threat of sanction by the criminal law.  Without s. 43, Canada’s broad assault law would criminalize force falling far short of what we think of as corporal punishment.  Generally, s. 43 exempts from criminal sanction only minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature. On the basis of current expert consensus, it does not apply to corporal punishment of children under two or teenagers.  Degrading, inhuman or harmful conduct is not protected.  Discipline by the use of objects or blows or slaps to the head is unreasonable.  Teachers may reasonably apply force to remove a child from a classroom or secure compliance with instructions, but not merely as corporal punishment.  Coupled with the requirement that the conduct be corrective, which rules out conduct stemming from the caregiver’s frustration, loss of temper or abusive personality, a consistent picture emerges of the area covered by s. 43.”  

http://www.canlii.org/canlii-dynamic/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc4/2004scc4.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAac3BhbmtpbmcgInNlY3Rpb24gNDMiIDIwMDQAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1#

A relevant article on this issue: http://www.lfpress.com/2015/12/23/cornies-let-spanking-legislation-stand-untouched

Defining what crosses the line between spanking and abuse is not always easy. PM Trudeau is committed to implementing all of the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which includes repealing section 34 of the Criminal Code which permits limited physical discipline of children. This will not however be limited to affecting just First Nations communities. Spanking is accepted parenting in some cultural and immigrant groups (as well as some Canadians), many of whom are already disproportionately targeted in criminal proceedings. If this is to be done it deserves, yet again, broad consultation and public input.

Repealing a provision of the Criminal Code that shields parents from facing assault charges for hitting their children would affect more than just First Nations communities, legal experts say.

Source: Repealing spanking law affects more than just First Nations: experts | CTV News

Let’s see, if you are found guilty of a criminal offence but the sentence is a discharge the RCMP will purge it from their records after 1 or 3 years however if you have a trial and are found not guilty, or the Crown withdraws the charge because they can’t prove it or the charge is stayed without a finding the RCMP will keep that on record unless you specifically request it to be purged, which they can refuse. Does that sound right to you? AND we don’t have pardons anymore. Harper got rid of those.

More than three million Canadians have had some type of criminal conviction that resulted in them having a criminal record. However, most of thes

Source: Helpful Information about Pardons and Criminal Records | AspirantSG – Food, Travel, Lifestyle & Social Media

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” The right to a fair trial is a principle of fundamental justice and requires the disclosure of the “fruits of the police investigation” as necessary to enable an accused person to make full answer and defend himself or herself against the charges that have been laid. The Crown must disclose all relevant information to the accused, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, subject to the right to refuse to disclose information that is privileged or plainly irrelevant. Prior to the Charter the Crown had absolutely no obligation to disclose anything and in practice, a trial was like an ambush.

Department of Justice Canada’s Internet site

Source: Background – Disclosure Reform – Consultation Paper

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted in 1982 as part of the repatriation of our Constitution. Prior to that citizens had no constitutional rights of privacy or freedoms and the final appeal in criminal cases was to the Privy Council in England. In 1982 we became masters of our own laws. At that time there existed Writs of Assistance which was a special type of search warrant issued to a police officer for his or her lifetime. No judicial decision was necessary. Under this Writ the officer could order citizens to do whatever the officer wanted to assist him in the execution of his or her duties and use whatever physical force considered necessary. The officer had unlimited power unrestricted as to date, time or place to enter any premises the officer wished to. Damaged or destroyed property did hot have to be repaired or destroyed. The Charter changed this.

https://bccla.org/our_work/writs-of-assistance/

 

It’s a theory that’s been around for a while but this article shows the convincing evidence. “Gasoline lead (Pb(CH2CH3)4) is responsible for a good share (as much as 90%) of the rise and fall of violent crime over the past half century. Childhood blood lead levels are consistently associated with higher adult arrest rates for violent crimes.”

New research finds Pb is the hidden villain behind violent crime, lower IQs, and even the ADHD epidemic. And fixing the problem is a lot cheaper than doing nothing.

Source: America’s Real Criminal Element: Lead | Mother Jones

This is not a change of direction or policy but rather confirmation that our courts are tough on crime when it’s appropriate.

Need to deter impaired driving justified stiff penalty after fatal 2011 crash in Quebec, justices say

Source: Supreme Court backs judge’s right to impose stiff sentence for drunk driving – The Globe and Mail