JURY DUTY IS NO WALK IN THE PARK – “For most citizens figuratively plucked off the street to serve as jurors, being plonked down in a courtroom and experiencing a real blood-and-guts murder trial can be jarring. It’s one thing to sit back with a bag of popcorn and enjoy a Hollywood slasher movie, quite another to delve, in sometimes excruciating and bloody detail, into a horrific crime committed in your own community, at a location you might know and where you, your family and friends might even frequent.”
IS THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ONTARIO CORRECT IN DENYING ACCESS TO ITS DATA?
IS THE DECISION TO DEPORT MR. SIDHU A REFLECTION OF OUR VALUES AS A SOCIETY? “Jaskirat Singh Sidhu was handed an eight-year sentence in 2019 after pleading guilty to dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm in the Saskatchewan crash that killed 16 people and injured 13 others. He was new to truck driving and had been on the job less than a month before the tragedy. In a federal court ruling released on Thursday, a judge denied Sidhu’s request to set aside a March 2022 Canada Border Services Agency decision calling for his deportation. Sidhu is a permanent resident, and under federal law, can be subject to deportation in the instance of a serious criminal offence. He was granted parole earlier this year.” (Josh Lynn CTV)
ALTHOUGH WE HOLD THE PRINCIPLE THAT A PRIMARY PURPOSE OF OUR JAILS IS REFORMATION AND REHABILITATION, THE TRUTH IS, IT IS NOT.
CRIMINAL LAW IS NOT THE PANACEA FOR ALL OF OUR SOCIAL ILLS – It seems imprudent to develop a new criminal offence of “coercive control” when we can’t define what that means. “The submission points out several concerns about the bill, with the first being that there is no uniform definition of coercive control. If you look at the academic literature, there’s one review study that has found 22 different definitions. It’s not like everybody is crystal clear on what we mean by coercive control,” says Mosher.
BEWARE OF THE LAWYER SCAM – It’s a variation of the grandparent scam.
HOW DOUG FORD AND DOUG DOWNEY ARE POLITICIZING AND DESTROYING THE JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT SYSTEM. WE TOLD YOU SO.
WE’RE STILL CLEANING UP THE MESSES, YEARS LATER, FROM HARPER’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL “TOUGH ON CRIME” AGENDA.
MORE COWBELL! – What do the courts do when they can’t handle the number of trials they already set? Well, set more trials, of course.
Ontario’s Court of Justice is issuing new practice directives in a bid to reduce delay and “unnecessary administrative appearances” in criminal proceedings.
The three new rules, which take hold Nov. 1, will involve the setting of trial dates in accordance with Jordan principles, the timely handling of s. 11 Charter applications and the enforcement of set adjournments for case management.
According to an announcement from the court, the first “commits the Court to offering a criminal trial date that complies with the obligations set out in R. v. Jordan to ensure an accused person’s constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time is respected.”
The court, it states, will offer parties a trial date “that is expected to result in the case being completed within 15 months of the Information sworn date.”
Parties will have been expected to have completed all intake steps involved with case management and be ready to either resolve the case or schedule a trial or preliminary hearing within six months of the information sworn date.
The Jordan rules come from the landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, which sets time limits on criminal court proceedings in a bid to address unwarranted and unconstitutional delay.
The second directive sees to it that the determination of s. 11 Charter applications is done in a timely way. Under this new rule, the hearing of an application must take place “at least four months before trial so that, if the application is granted and a stay of proceedings is imposed, the scheduled trial dates may be utilized for other matters.”
Among other things, s. 11 deals with the right to a timely trial and the protection of unreasonable delay in criminal matters.
The third, which applies only to courts in Toronto and Brampton, “establishes a standard 12-week adjournment for matters in which counsel is retained at an accused person’s first or second appearance in case management court.”
By the end of this adjournment period, both the defence and Crown should have finished the case management steps and be either ready to resolve the case or set a date for trial or preliminary inquiry.
“Reducing administrative appearances for counsel matters will shorten case management court dockets and permit the Court to spend more time addressing those matters which require more active case management,” states the announcement.
Additional details on the new directives can be found in the announcement.
If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada, please contact Terry Davidson at t.davidson@lexisnexis.ca or 905-415-5899.