780-429-4004

Available 24 hrs

Always here for you!

780-429-4004

Call Us Today!

Contact Us
logo
mobile logo
 

Author: pantelis

Edmonton Criminal Lawyer Ziv > Articles posted by pantelis
02 June
0 Comments
Sticky

Can Police Stop You for “No Reason”? A Criminal Defence Lawyer’s Perspective

Posted by pantelis
in Criminal Code, criminal law
Shot of a young driver talking to a traffic policeman

Based on insights from Edmonton criminal defence lawyer Rory Ziv

The Legal Reality in Canada

If you’ve ever wondered whether police can pull you over without cause, the answer might surprise you. In Canada, police officers can legally stop drivers for several reasons that don’t require observing a traffic violation or having reasonable suspicion of criminal activity:

  • Document checks: Police can stop you to verify your driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance
  • Sobriety checks: Officers can pull over any vehicle to assess whether the driver is impaired by alcohol or drugs
  • Mechanical fitness: Police can stop vehicles to inspect their mechanical condition and ensure they’re safe for road use

This broad authority means that technically, police don’t need a specific reason related to your driving behaviour to initiate a traffic stop.

This authority stems from a 1990 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Regina v. Ladouceur, which was decided by a narrow 5-4 margin. The Court found that the random checks violated the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned under section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the violation was saved under section 1 as it was a valid form of deterrence for a pressing problem of traffic safety. “Random stops supply the only effective deterrent” to unlicensed driving, the Court reasoned, establishing that random stops for document checks are constitutionally permissible under Canadian law.

The Reality Gap: Who Actually Gets Stopped?

Here’s where the legal theory meets troubling real-world practice. Edmonton criminal defence lawyer Rory Ziv points out a stark disparity in his TikTok video that highlights a concerning pattern:

Despite 27 years of driving, Rory Ziv, as a caucasian man, has never once been stopped by police for a routine document check. However, he notes that a majority of his racialized clients have been stopped multiple times for these same “routine” checks.

This observation raises serious questions about how these seemingly neutral laws are being applied in practice. If document checks, sobriety checks, and vehicle inspections were truly random and applied equally, we would expect to see a more even distribution across all demographics.

Recent Legal Developments Challenge the Status Quo

The legal landscape around random police stops is evolving rapidly. In October 2022, Quebec’s Supreme Court ruled that random traffic stops violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, invalidating police powers across the province to conduct random stops. The case, PG du Québec v. Luamba, marked a significant victory against racial profiling.

The Quebec appellate decision confirms that racial profiling is not an occasional event, but a daily reality for the Black, Arabic and Indigenous communities. The court found that while article 636 of Quebec’s Highway Safety Code is supposed to be applied evenly to all drivers, the evidence showed this wasn’t happening in practice.

What makes this case particularly significant is that it raised novel constitutional issues that went beyond the original Ladouceur decision. While Ladouceur had examined traffic stops only regarding protections against arbitrary detention in section 9 of the Charter, the Luamba case challenged traffic stops under section 7, which guarantees the right to life, liberty and personal security.

However, this victory may be short-lived. The Quebec government has successfully appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, with the Court granting leave to appeal in May 2025. This means the highest court in Canada will soon reconsider whether random police stops should be permitted, potentially overturning decades of legal precedent.

The Data Speaks: Evidence of Disparate Impact

Research from various Canadian jurisdictions supports Rory Ziv’s observations about unequal enforcement. Studies examining traffic stops have found that compared with White drivers, five of the six racialized groups face disproportionate stopping rates for “provincial and municipal offences”.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has documented at least 11 human rights applications filed against the Ottawa Police Service from 2009 onward, alleging discriminatory treatment that resembles racial profiling, with several involving traffic stops. This pattern isn’t limited to Ottawa—similar concerns have been raised in cities across Canada.

The statistics are particularly troubling when considering that the vast majority of traffic stops (97.19%) were made for “provincial and municipal offences”—exactly the type of routine document checks that Ladouceur permits police to conduct at their discretion.

Professional Officer Ordering a Driver to Get Out of the Vehicle and Put His Hands on the Hood of his Car. Female Backup Cop Joins the Scene to Help her Partner. Potentially Fire-Armed Suspect

Understanding the Original Ladouceur Decision

To understand why this issue remains contentious, it’s important to examine the original 1990 Supreme Court decision more closely. While the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that evidence from random stops should be admitted in court, the nine judges divided sharply on whether Charter rights had been violated, with the majority concluding that while rights had been infringed, the infringement did not amount to a violation of the Charter.

The Court justified this position by arguing that random checks were a valid form of deterrence for the pressing problem of traffic safety. However, this reasoning from over three decades ago is now being challenged with fresh evidence about how these powers are actually being used.

Provincial Variations and Ongoing Challenges

It’s worth noting that police powers can vary slightly between provinces, though the general authority for document checks remains consistent across Canada. Government lawyers defending these powers argue that racial profiling is an issue of individual officers acting improperly rather than a systemic problem with the law itself.

However, civil liberties advocates and legal experts increasingly argue that the problem is structural. When police have broad discretionary powers to stop any driver for routine checks, individual biases, whether conscious or unconscious, can lead to discriminatory enforcement patterns that disproportionately affect racialized communities.

What This Means for Drivers

Understanding your rights during a traffic stop is crucial:

  • You must provide your driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance when requested
  • You must comply with sobriety testing if requested (breathalyzer, field sobriety tests, etc.)
  • You must allow vehicle safety inspections if requested
  • You are not required to answer questions beyond providing required documents and complying with lawful testing
  • You can remain silent about where you’re going, where you’ve been, or what you’re doing
  • You should comply with all lawful requests while preserving your rights

The Bigger Picture

While the law technically allows police to stop any driver for document checks, the apparent selective enforcement raises important questions about equality before the law. If certain communities are disproportionately targeted for these “random” stops, it undermines the principle that all citizens should be treated equally by law enforcement.

The conversation around police stops and racial profiling continues to evolve, and legal challenges to current practices may reshape how these powers are exercised in the future.

Take Action: Know Your Rights and Get Legal Help

Understanding your rights during police stops is just the first step. If you’ve been stopped by police and believe your rights were violated, or if you’re facing charges following a traffic stop, don’t navigate the legal system alone.

Contact an experienced criminal defence lawyer in Edmonton today – contact Rory Ziv to discuss your case and protect your rights. Whether you’re dealing with impaired driving charges, document violations, or believe you were targeted unfairly, professional legal representation can make all the difference in your case outcome.

Don’t wait – your freedom and future may depend on the actions you take right now!

This blog post is based on insights shared by Rory Ziv, a criminal defence lawyer practicing in Edmonton, Alberta. For specific legal advice about your situation, consult with a qualified lawyer in your jurisdiction.

29 May
0 Comments
Sticky

Understanding the Collateral Fact Rule in Canadian Criminal Defence

Posted by pantelis
in credibility
a book about criminal law codes

When facing criminal charges in Canada, understanding the nuances of evidence law can mean the difference between conviction and acquittal. One crucial principle that often comes into play during criminal trials is the Collateral Fact Rule – a legal doctrine that determines what evidence can be presented to challenge a witness’s credibility. If you’re dealing with criminal charges in Edmonton, understanding this rule and its applications could be vital to your defence strategy.

What Is the Collateral Fact Rule?

The Collateral Fact Rule is a fundamental principle in Canadian evidence law that governs when lawyers can introduce evidence to attack a witness’s credibility. While it might sound complex, the rule essentially balances two competing interests: the right to present a full defence and the need for efficient, focused trials.

The Purpose Behind the Rule

The Collateral Fact Rule doesn’t exist to limit evidence because it’s irrelevant. Instead, as established in R. v. C.F. 2017 ONCA 480, the rule aims to “preserve trial efficiency and avoid confusion.” Courts recognize that while credibility evidence can be crucial, unlimited exploration of collateral issues could make trials unnecessarily lengthy and confusing for juries.

Key Legal Precedents Defining the Rule

R. v. C.F. (2017 ONCA 480): Setting the Standard

In this landmark Ontario Court of Appeal case, the defense sought to introduce evidence of a prior acquittal involving the same complainant, same type of allegation, and same accused. The defense argued this demonstrated a pattern of fabrication, while the Crown invoked the Collateral Fact Rule to exclude it.

The court’s decision was clear: evidence undermining a witness’s credibility may be allowed if it’s central enough to the case. Because the prior incident involved identical parties during the same timeframe, the evidence was permitted.

R. v. GAR (2022 BCSC 844): Clarifying the Balance

The British Columbia Supreme Court provided an excellent summary of the principle, stating: “The collateral fact rule is not absolute and is primarily aimed at trial efficiency rather than denying the relevance of collateral issues. Where the probity of collateral issues is significant enough to outweigh trial efficiency concerns it can be admitted. This may especially be the case where credibility is the central issue.”

R. v. Boyd (2006 MBQB 128): The Practical Test

Manitoba’s Court of Queen’s Bench established a practical framework for applying the rule, asking: “Is the evidence offered of sufficient value and of sufficient importance to the issues before the court that it ought to be heard having regard to the necessary court time required, potential confusion of issues, and any unfairness and prejudice to the witness?”

When Does the Collateral Fact Rule Apply?

Central vs. Peripheral Evidence

The rule distinguishes between evidence that goes to the heart of the case and evidence that’s merely tangential. Courts are more likely to admit collateral evidence when:

  • Credibility is the central issue in the case
  • The evidence directly relates to the specific allegations
  • The probative value significantly outweighs concerns about trial efficiency
  • The same parties and similar circumstances are involved

Practical Applications in Criminal Defence

Understanding when the Collateral Fact Rule applies can be crucial for criminal defence strategies. Defence lawyers must carefully evaluate whether challenging evidence meets the threshold for admission, considering factors like:

  • The strength of the credibility challenge
  • The potential for jury confusion
  • The time required for additional evidence
  • The fairness to all parties involved

Strategic Implications for Criminal Defence

Building Effective Defence Strategies

For criminal defence lawyers, like Rory Ziv in Edmonton, the Collateral Fact Rule presents both opportunities and challenges. When credibility is central to a case, as it often is in sexual assault cases or cases involving witness testimony, understanding how to navigate this rule becomes essential.

a lawyer and his client discussing a defence strategy

The Importance of Expert Legal Representation

Given the complexity of applying the Collateral Fact Rule, having experienced criminal defence counsel like Rory Ziv is crucial. A skilled criminal defence lawyer can identify when collateral evidence might be admissible and how to present arguments that satisfy the court’s balancing test.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Collateral Fact Rule

Q1. What exactly is considered “collateral” evidence?

Collateral evidence refers to facts that are not directly related to the main issues in the case but might affect the credibility of witnesses. This could include prior inconsistent statements, evidence of bias, or previous allegations that were not proven.

Q2. Can prior acquittals be used as evidence under this rule?

As demonstrated in R. v. C.F., prior acquittals can sometimes be admitted if they’re sufficiently connected to the current case and involve the same parties. However, each situation is evaluated based on its specific circumstances and the court’s balancing test.

Q3. How do courts balance trial efficiency against the right to full defence?

Courts use a multi-factor test considering the probative value of the evidence, the time required to present it, potential jury confusion, and fairness to all parties. The more central the credibility issue is to the case, the more likely collateral evidence will be admitted.

Q4. Does the Collateral Fact Rule apply to all types of criminal cases?

Yes, the rule applies across all criminal proceedings in Canada, though its impact varies depending on whether credibility is a central issue in the specific case.

Q5. Can the Crown also use the Collateral Fact Rule?

Yes, both Crown and defence can invoke the Collateral Fact Rule, though it’s more commonly used by the Crown to limit defence evidence that might be prejudicial or time-consuming.

Q6. What happens if collateral evidence is wrongly excluded or admitted?

If appellate courts determine that collateral evidence was wrongly handled, it could form grounds for appeal, particularly if the error materially affected the trial’s outcome.

Protect Your Rights with Expert Criminal Defence

The Collateral Fact Rule represents just one of many complex legal principles that can significantly impact your criminal case. Whether you’re facing charges involving witness credibility, sexual assault allegations, or any other criminal matter, having experienced legal representation is essential to navigate these intricate rules effectively.

Don’t leave your freedom to chance. If you’re facing criminal charges in Edmonton and need expert legal guidance on evidence law, including the application of the Collateral Fact Rule, contact Edmonton Criminal Lawyer Ziv today. With extensive experience in Canadian criminal law and a deep understanding of evidence rules, Edmonton Criminal  Lawyer Ziv can help develop the strongest possible defence strategy for your case.

Contact Edmonton Criminal Lawyer Ziv now for a consultation to discuss how the Collateral Fact Rule and other evidence principles might affect your case. Your future depends on having the right legal advocate fighting for your rights.

20 April
0 Comments
Sticky

Rory Ziv: Top 3 DUI Lawyers in Edmonton, AB

Posted by pantelis
in dui, Impaired Driving, lawyer, ziv
Rory Ziv Top Dui Lawyer

This year, Rory Ziv has been selected as one of the top 3 DUI lawyers in Edmonton Alberta by Three Best Rated® (CANADA). He is proud and extremely honoured to have been selected as one the top 3 local DUI lawyers in Edmonton because, for decades, Rory Ziv has been diligently representing individuals from all walks of life who have been facing DUI charges. 

An Impartial Evaluation

This ward is a true honour because Three Best Rated® (CANADA) aims to find the top 3 local DUI lawyers by conducting thorough checks and reviews of prospective candidates. They conduct a 50-Point Inspection which includes business’s reviews, history, complaints, ratings, nearness, satisfaction, trust, cost, general excellence, and reputation. Most importantly those awarded do not pay Three Best Rated® to list them. The award-winners are listed for free because as they say “…if you can pay to list, then is it really the best business? No Pay to Play!”

Best Dui lawyers in Edmonton

Rory Ziv is excited to be among the Top 3 local DUI lawyers in Edmonton since the years of hard work he has spent defending individuals charged with impaired driving offences have been recognized not only by his clients but also but an impartial third party. 

What Makes Rory Ziv The Right Choice For You

As the founding and managing partner of Ziv Law Group, Rory Ziv is a highly sought-after DUI and criminal trial attorney. He is well-known for his extensive preparation, attention to detail and considerable knowledge of the provincial and federal criminal code. However, what characterizes Rory Ziv as a top DUI and criminal lawyer is his relentless, unshakeable and passionate advocacy on behalf of his clients.

Rory Ziv has always known that being charged with DUI can be intimidating, that is why he carefully assesses the case against his clients and works with them to obtain the best possible result available, whether that is a withdrawal of the charge, a reduction at sentencing or even a full acquittal at trial.

If you are ever charged with DUI or any other criminal offence, it is important to call our office as soon as possible at 780-429-4004 because you deserve the best defence possible!