ARREST THAT PARROT!
A police raid in Brazil has netted an unlikely suspect: a parrot who allegedly warned targeted drug dealers by shouting “Mom, the police!”
Source: Parrot Arrested After Warning Drug Dealers About Police Raid
A CHANGE AT THE LAW SOCIETY – It is time for a change.
This week, a slate of those brave enough to publicly oppose the ‘statement of principles’ the Law Society of Ontario imposed upon lawyers was resoundingly elected
Source: Christie Blatchford: Ontario lawyers score victory for free thought in Law Society election
THE VICTIM FINE SURCHARGE IS COMING BACK – So we’re back to where we were a few years ago. It’s discretionary.
The Trudeau government plans to restore the victim surcharge the Supreme Court of Canada struck down five months ago — but sentencing judges will be given a new discretion to waive it when imposing the surcharge “would be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender” or when imposing it would cause the offender “undue hardship,” The Lawyer’s Daily has learned.
“OH NO, THE POLICE WOULDN’T ABUSE THIS POWER,” THEY SAID: This power to arbitrarily target drivers is being abused all over. This officer has her “expert opinions” after all.
This appears to confirm fears police would use the new powers to arbitrarily target drivers, ignoring the requirement to have a legitimate reason to pull someone over
THIRD PARTY STANDING IN SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES – This is a game changer.
The trial has been paused because a third party — Boyle’s estranged wife, and her lawyer — has essentially and with the permission of the law hijacked the proceeding
Source: Christie Blatchford: What stopped the Boyle trial could put every single sex assault case ‘in limbo’
TESTING DRIVERS’ SALIVA FOR CANNABIS – No matter what the detection device, the saliva-testing devices do not measure the level of impairment in a driver.
OTTAWA — The federal government has taken the first step toward approving a new device for testing drivers’ saliva for cannabis use, potentially giving police a long-awaited second option. Over the weekend, the government posted a
After deciding that the determination of whether a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy” exists in communications is contextual, have now found that the nature of the relationship is context. Specifically (?) you do not have an expectation of privacy in a sexual communication with someone you believe to be a child, who is a stranger to you.
A man who was convicted of luring a 14-year-old girl over the Internet had no expectation of privacy in his online communications with “Leann,” who in reality was an undercover police officer, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled today, in a judgement in which the judges diverged on approaches to privacy.
Source: No expectation of privacy in child-luring cases on the Internet, SCC rules | Canadian Lawyer Mag
POLICE RECORD CHECKS – If you’re wondering if that old indiscretion will be reported on a “criminal record check”, here is a summary of what can and cannot be disclosed in each level of record checks.
ARE ELECTRONIC SEXUAL CONVERSATIONS PRIVATE? – Not if it’s with a child (or someone pretending to be a child) that you don’t know. In such a case you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, our Supreme Court says. (R. v. Mills) I wonder if that’s going to apply to all electronic communications involved in any alleged crime? Here is the “Case in Brief”.
Source: Supreme Court of Canada – 37518