780-686-7948

Available 24 hrs

Always here for you!

780-686-7948

Call Us Today!

Contact Us
logo
mobile logo
 

best lawyer Tag

Edmonton Criminal Lawyer Ziv > Posts tagged "best lawyer"
15 April
0 Comments
Sticky

NEW MARIJUANA AND DUI LAW

Posted by Rory
in Charter Rights, Defences, dui, lawyer, lawyer edmonton, search or seizure, Search Warrants

NEW MARIJUANA AND DUI LAW Sucking and Blowing

Two new bills were proposed by the government of Canada this week. The new marijuana bill which legalizes possession of 30g or four marijuana plants and new impaired driving legislation.

The link for the new marijuana bill is here:

The link for the new impaired driving link is here:

The Marijuana Bill

I can’t help but to notice that the new marijuana bill is – confusing. Confusing not because its badly worded, structured or illogical but because it sends a conflicting message:

The purpose of the act is set out in section 7 which states:

The Act’s purpose is to “protect public health and public safety” by restricting its access (especially to children), deterring illegal activities associated with cannabis, while at the same time, relieving the burden it places on the criminal justice system and providing access to quality controlled products.

In the same breath, the government is underscoring that marijuana is dangerous “to protect public health and safety” yet advocating for its access.

I’m not advocating a position on marijuana. I’m only highlighting the apparent contrast in the new Act.

The Impaired Driving Bill

I read in a newspaper piece that stated that impaired driving laws have “softened” because of “high priced lawyers” are finding “loopholes”.  Without commenting more on this naïve perspective of the role of criminal defence lawyers, my reading of the new Act (which seems to be cut and paste) of our previous Government’s work (which was not enacted because of the regime change at the last election) the new Act is certainly going to test our relationship as individuals with our government.

One of the glaring new sections 320.27(2) authorizes a peace officer to demand a sample of your breath without any grounds whatsoever to believe you have any alcohol in your body.

This is going to create a significant amount of DUI litigation.   To begin, people don’t like to be told what to do and now we are going to force them to provide a sample of their breath when they have done nothing wrong.

What I find interesting is there has been a push to cease DUI litigation with alternative provincial administrative type enforcement. In British Columbia for example, DUI cases are no longer prosecuted (with some exceptions) because the Provincial government has found other more cost effective ways to deter and punish people for impaired driving. This new legislation coupled with the legalization of marijuana is going to reverse the progressive steps taken in jurisdictions like British Columbia.

Since the legalization of marijuana is coupled with get tough on crime and impaired driving initiatives, I can’t help to feel like the Government is sucking and blowing. We may have taken one step forward by legalizing marijuana but I wonder if we have also taken two steps back?

24 February
0 Comments
Sticky

Bail

Posted by Rory
in Bail, burden of proof

BAIL

The Primary Ground

Strength of the Crown’s Case

“The expeditious and sometimes informal nature of a bail hearing may reflect an unrealistically strong case for the Crown”.

            R. v. St Cloud 2015 SCJ NO 27 at paras 57-9

“In considering all of the relevant circumstances, the hearing judge must not become so focused on the gravity of the offence and the strength of the Crown’s case as to overlook that there are no categories of offences for which bail is not a possibility. There are few crimes of violence or of murder where one could not say that the gravity of the offence, considered on its own, without regard for the purpose of bail, justifies detention. There are also many cases where the strength of the Crown’s case appears, at the pre-trial stage, to be overwhelming only to have it unravel as the trial progresses. It is also dangerous to place too much emphasis on the possibility of a lengthy prison term as all serious crimes carry the possibility of such. Giving undue weight to this factor becomes a means to start punishment before conviction.”

R. v. Blind (1999), 139 CCC (3d) (Sask C.A).

‘… there may be some danger in Placing too much emphasis on this factor … [t]his is why the courts have been willing to acknowledge the relevance of this factor, but have emphasized that a strong (even a overwhelming Crown case) is not determinative of bail”.  [1]
The Accused is an Australian Citizen (not a Chinese citizen)

In R. v. Aldrich [1976] BCJ No 421the accused was charged with murder. At para 6:

The Crown forcefully submitted that as a pilot he could move at any time and work anywhere in the world. The Crown further submitted, amongst other things, that there did not appear to be any motive for the killing and if such was the case — such a killer was the most dangerous type of person to be on the loose in the community. A further forceful argument was that in addition to the murder charge the police had found five restricted weapons in the applicant’s possession at the residence which he shared with the victim and he has been charged with offences relating to these weapons.

At para 12:

… [t]he Crown’s submission that being a pilot gives him special advantages does not impress me, as in this day and age one can just as easily flee by commercial airline or other modes of transportation. The applicant’s background as disclosed in his affidavit and testimonial letters submitted on his behalf indicate to me that up to the present time he has been a responsible citizen. I am accordingly satisfied that the applicant’s detention is not necessary to ensure his attendance at his trial.

·         This is true of virtually any person released from custody, resident or not “in this day and age” can flee;

·         Globalization;

·         Extradition Treaties;

Standard of Proof – Balance of probabilities

It seems to me that the burden should be the minimum burden of proof known to the law, not the maximum burden or proof beyond reasonable doubt, as upon the Crown on criminal trials. It seems completely unreasonable that, in such applications which come, ordinarily, in the very early stages of criminal investigations, the burden upon the Crown should be more than that minimum burden that I have indicated.

R. v. Julian 1972 NSJ No. 189 at para 5

Onus of Proof and the presumption of innocence

Parliament has established a clear reverse onus burden on Mr. Alde: pursuant to the provisions of s. 515(6) of the Criminal Code, a judge considering bail must detain him in custody until his trial unless Mr. Alde can “show cause why [his] detention is not justified”. In this case, the reasons of the bail judge make it clear that the bail judge would not consider Mr. Alde’s release unless Mr. Alde could prove his innocence. That standard of proof is more onerous than the burden of proof to establish an accused’s guilt: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It would be illogical for an accused to have to prove that he is innocent when he is still presumed to be innocent and in circumstances where, at trial, the Crown will only have to prove that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not only is it illogical, it is also contrary to the provisions of the Charter: sub-paras 11(d) and (e). Therefore, while the burden on an accused in a reverse onus in a bail situation is a heavy one, he does not have to prove that he is innocent.

R. v. Alde [2008] A.J. No 1585 (Alta Q.B.) at para 15 (J. Veit)

[1][1] The Law of Bail in Canada (3rd edition) Gary T. Trotter, Carswell, 3-7

15 March
0 Comments
Sticky

Colour of Right

Posted by Rory
in Defences, Uncategorized

Theft and Colour of Right

Theft

322 (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent

(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;

(b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;

(c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or

(d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.

Motor vehicle theft

333.1 (1) Everyone who commits theft is, if the property stolen is a motor vehicle, guilty of an offence and liable

(a) on proceedings by way of indictment, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years, and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months in the case of a third or subsequent offence under this subsection; or

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months.

 

WHAT DOES THE CROWN NEED TO PROVE?

This case will hinge on whether the alleged theft took place fraudulently and without colour of right. Case law suggests that both defences are related and will hinge on similar facts.

Fraudulent Intent

R v Laroche, [1964] SCR 667

Honest but mistaken belief works

Colour of Right

R v Lilly (1983), 34 CR (3d) 1, R v. Shymkowich, 19 CR 401

Honest but mistaken belief works

“With respect, this is clearly, in my view, misdirection in law. The fate of the accused’s defence of colour of right was not dependent upon the jury determining when the commissions were payable. That question was indeed important as relevant to whether the monies were his or those of his clients. The fact that they still be the property of the client was a prerequisite to his having to raise a defence to the taking or conversion. Rather, the accused’s defence was dependent upon whether they, the jury, were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he, the accused, had not, at the time of the transfers, an honest belief that he had the right to that money, and not, as they were told, dependent upon what they, the jurors, thought his rights were.”

 

Noting up Colour of Right Cases

Lilly is the foundational case in this area. It is important to note that in Lilly, a case decided in ’83, the alleged theft involved almost 27 thousand dollars, a lot of money now. But the SCC was very clear in stating that honest but mistaken belief is always a defence to theft.

R. v. Abramenko  [2008] A.J. No. 61, 2008 ABPC 23

Alberta Provincial Court case that does a good job of canvassing the law.

Further, I am satisfied that the accused had a colour of right when he withdrew the monies from Brent’s account. In R. v. Dorosh (G.) (2004) 241 Sask. R. 180 (Sask. C.A.), Bayda C.J.S., speaking for the panel, at paragraphs 16 – 18 inclusive, gave the following explanation of the concept of “colour of right”:

“[16] The jurisprudential history surrounding the phrase ‘colour of right’ indicates that the meaning of the phrase has a certain quality of elusiveness (see The Law of Theft and Related Offences by Winifred H. Holland (Toronto: Carswell, 1998) at pp. 150-170). The definition of the phrase by Martin J.A., speaking for the Court (including Gale C.J.O., and Estey J.A.), in R. v. DeMarco (1973), 13 C.C.C. (2d) 369 (Ont. C.A.) at 372 may be taken to have settled many, if not all, of the contentious issues raised by earlier Canadian cases where the phrase was considered. He said:

‘The term “colour of right” generally, although not exclusively, refers to a situation where there is an assertion of a proprietary or possessory right to the thing which is the subject-matter of the alleged theft. One who is honestly asserting what he believes to be an honest claim cannot be said to act “without colour of right”, even though it may be unfounded in law or in fact: see R. v. Howson, [1966] 3 C.C.C. 348; 55 D.L.R. (2d) 582, [1966] 2 O.R. 63. The term “colour of right” is also used to denote an honest belief in a state of facts which, if it actually existed would at law justify or excuse the act done: R. v. Howson. The term when used in the latter sense is merely a particular application of the doctrine of mistake of fact.’

[17] Since DeMarco was decided, the Supreme Court of Canada has dealt with the ‘colour of right’ issue in two cases: R. v. Lilly, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 794; 48 N.R. 140; 24 Sask.R 50 and R. v. Jones and Pamajewon, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 110, 137 N.R. 321. Nothing said in the judgments in either of those cases in any way detracts from Martin, J.A.’s, definition. If anything, the court’s decision in Lilly may be said to impliedly support the definition. In two other cases, R. v. Lafrance, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 201 and R. v. Milne, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 697; 135 N.R. 202; 125 A.R. 135; 14 W.A.C. 135; [1992] 3 W.W.R. 97; 85 Alta. L.R. (2d) 257; 12 C.R. (4th) 175; 70 C.C.C. (3d) 481, the ‘colour of right’ issue arose only incidentally and not as a principal issue. These judgments as well contain nothing that detracts from the DeMarco definition.

[18] A colour of right can have its basis in either a mistake of civil law (a colour of right provides an exception to s. 19 of the Code; see: The Law of Theft and Related Offences p. 153) or in a mistake in a state of facts. The mistake in each case must give rise to either an honest belief in a proprietary or possessory right to the thing which is the subject matter of the alleged theft or an honest belief in the state of facts which if it actually existed would at law justify or excuse the act done.”

40     In the case at Bar, the accused honestly believed that he had the right to borrow money from his son’s AISH account (and, on the facts as I have found them, he did have that right). While the AISH monies were to be used for the benefit of Brent, I take from Ms. Mittelstadt’s testimony that the right to borrow did not depend upon the borrowing being for the benefit of the trust beneficiary. The fact that the accused had an honest belief that his borrowing and use of the funds was to the benefit of Brent goes not to the issue of “colour of right”, but rather it goes to the question of whether the acts of the accused were fraudulent (an issue with which I have already dealt).

41     I am completely satisfied that the accused had a colour of right to do that which he did.

R. v. DeMarco  [1973] O.J. No. 533

(This is an older case than Lilly, but on point)

Involved a vehicle, accused had kept a rental vehicle beyond due date, and had not paid, she thought there was nothing wrong with her behaviour and she could just pay them later

“The term “colour of right” generally, although not exclusively refers to a situation where there is an assertion of a proprietary or possessory right to the thing which is the subject matter of the alleged theft. One who is honestly asserting what he believes to be an honest claim cannot be said to act “without colour of right”, even though it may be unfounded in law or in fact. Reg. v. Howson, [1966] 2 O.R. 63. The term “colour of right” is also used to denote an honest belief in a state of facts which, if it actually existed would at law justify or excuse the act done: Reg. v. Howson, supra. The term when used in the latter sense is merely a particular application of the doctrine of mistake of fact.”

R. v. Pena – [1997] B.C.J. No. 1405

Very interesting case, stands for the proposition that mistake of law is also included in colour of right defence. (On reflection, this is backed up in other cases too, plus this seems self-evident because colour of right is an element of the office and mistake about it (which can include mistake of law) should be a defence)

“However, as noted by Stuart in Canadian Criminal Law, supra at 308, “it now seems clear that colour of right can also result from a pure mistake of law.”

11     In R. v. Howson, [1966] 3 C.C.C. 348 (Ont. C.A.), a case where a car towing company had been charged with the theft of a car, Porter C.J.O. reviewed the law regarding colour of right and mistake of law, and held, at p. 356:

In my view the word “right” should be construed broadly. The use of the word cannot be said to exclude a legal right. The word is in its ordinary sense charged with legal implications. I do not think that s. 19 affects s. 269 [now s. 429]. Section 19 only applies where there is an offence. There is no offence if there is colour of right. If upon all the evidence it may fairly be inferred that the accused acted under a genuine misconception of fact or law, there would be no offence of theft committed. The trial tribunal must satisfy itself that the accused has acted upon an honest, but mistaken belief that the right is based upon either fact or law, or mixed fact and law.

12     Accordingly, in R. v. DeMarco (1974), 13 C.C.C. (2d) 369 at 372 (Ont. C.A.), where the accused had rented a car and not returned it on time because she did not think that she was obliged to, Martin J. held:

The term “colour of right” generally, although not exclusively, refers to a situation where there is an assertion of a proprietary or possessory right to the thing which is the subject-matter of the alleged theft. One who is honestly asserting what he believes to be an honest claim cannot be said to act “without colour of right”, even though it may be unfounded in law or in fact…The term “colour of right” is also used to denote an honest belief in a state of facts which, if it actually existed would at law justify or excuse the act done…The term when used in the latter sense is merely a particular application of the doctrine of mistake of fact.
13     An honest belief concerning property rights, whether based on a mistake in fact or in law, may constitute a colour of right: Lilly v. The Queen (1983), 5 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.). (I don’t think Lilly makes this clear at all, it talks about mistake of fact

14     Recently, in R. v. Jorgensen (1995), 102 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (S.C.C.), Lamer C.J.C. noted at pp. 102-103 of his dissenting opinion that:

Despite the importance of [the rule against ignorance of the law] some exceptions to it are already established in our law…a certain number of our Criminal Code offenses provide an excuse for an accused who acted with colour of right. The existence of these exceptions demonstrates that the ignorantia juris rule is not to be applied when it would render a conviction manifestly unjust.

15     By implication, Lamer C.J.C. apppears to acknowledge that the colour of right defence includes mistake of law.

16     Finally, Penashue, supra, R. v. Drainville (1991), 5 C.R. (4th) 38 (Ont. Prov. Ct.) and R. v. Potts, [Q.L. [1990] O.J. No. 2567] (Ont. Prov. Ct.) a11 involve fact situations similar to present case. The accused were charged with mischief for occupying what they claimed were aboriginal lands. In all three cases, it was accepted that mistake of law was included in the colour of right defence, and the Court instead focused on the issues of a moral as opposed to legal right, and the accused’s “honest belief.””

04 March
0 Comments
Sticky

Right to Counsel

Posted by Rory
in Charter Rights, implemenational duties, right to counsel

Right to Counsel

Implementational Duties

 

In considering right to counsel, R v Street, 2016 SKPC 7, provides interesting insight into the nature of implementational duties under S 10 (b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Facts: After being arrested for impaired driving, Street asked to speak to a lawyer by the name of McKay. The constable with her dialed the number, but did not wait for a response. He then dialed another number, and subsequently dialed Legal Aid. It was the Constable’s idea to call Legal Aid.

Analysis: Hinds J quotes R v Kreiser, 2013 SKPC 107 in explaining the nature of the duty under s 10 (b).

S 10 (b) or “the right to counsel has an information component and an implementation component. The information component requires the police to inform the detainee of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, and of the existence and availability of Legal Aid and duty counsel: R. v. Luong, 2000 ABCA 301.”

“The implementation component of the right to counsel is two-fold, and arises when the detainee expresses a desire to exercise the right to counsel. First, it requires the police to give the detainee a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel. Second, it requires the police to hold off on attempts to gather evidence until the detainee has had that reasonable opportunity (except, of course, in situations of urgency or danger): R. v. Luong, supra; R. v. Bartle, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; R. v. Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 310.”

The judge also uses Kreiser to note that these duties are not absolute and that reasonable diligence is required by the detainee in attempting to contact counsel.

The judge finds that the interpretational duty was violated in this case. In particular, he is concerned that the “Constable pushed Ms. Street in the direction of Legal Aid as a convenient way of fulfilling the requirements of section 10 (b) of the Charter when he dialed the telephone number for Legal Aid duty counsel at 3:24 a.m.”

The judge goes on to note that “Put another way, I am of the view that he streamed Ms. Street towards Legal Aid. I find that Constable Boprai did not act diligently in facilitating the right of Ms. Street to contact her counsel of choice. He could have and should have waited more than a few minutes for a return call from Mr. McKay. I find that Constable Boprai breached his implementational duty.”

Note: In cases where a detainee does not have a lawyer, or is unable to contact the lawyer of his/her choice, it is appropriate to remind him/her of legal aid options.

03 February
0 Comments
Sticky

Criminal Harassment

Posted by Rory
in Defences, harassment, harrasment

Criminal Harassment Memo

 

Thoughts on Sillipp and related harassment Cases

I was able to look up a number of cases that cited Sillipp, and based on that have some thoughts on arguments that the offence of criminal harassment isn’t made out on the facts.
R. v. Sillipp 1997 ABCA 346

Sillipp read 264(1) to mean that criminal harassment is established when the crown can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a) the defendant engaged in conduct described in 264 (2) (a-d) b) Victim was harassed c) intention can be established by knowledge, recklessness, or wilful blindness, d)the conduct caused V to fear for her safety e) V’s fear was reasonable
Mens Rea- Delusion?
Sillipp seems to be the foundational case for Criminal Harassment. In my earlier input into this case, I had suggested using the lack of mens rea as an argument, but case law seems scant on this point. In fact there is an actual case (R. v. Crook [2015] O.J. No. 5849 2015 ONCJ 627) where the judge rejected a psychologist’s testimony that the defendant was delusional and believed himself to be in love (Although in that case the crown prosecutor and the amicus curae-the accused was self represented-urged the judge to not take into account the psychologist’s testimony )
This may be useful for us, however. In Crook, the judge, after accepting the crown and the A.C’s suggestion to disregard the psychologist’s testimony, went on to consider whether mens rea was established regardless. In this case, it wasn’t because 1)the delusion was limited to another facet of the case and 2)the delusion did not properly explain Mr. Crook’s actions
20 First, the delusions identified by Dr. Van Impe are limited to the belief that Lisa and Brent were not the parents of the children living with them and that Lisa might ultimately enter into a relationship with Mr. Crook. These delusions do not extend to a belief that the Aube children had been abducted, although the suggestion of abduction is either explicit or implicit in the Abduction Communications. Absent that feature as part of Mr. Crook’s identified delusions, his references to abduction is an act naturally resulting in significant perturbation on the part of the Aubes and cannot be excused as part of any fixed and false set of beliefs.
21 Second, Ms. Ross and Mr. Jim point out that Mr. Crook, if the sender, went to some lengths to disguise his identity, posing, for example, as a concerned parent of another child, as a police officer, and as a Toronto Star reporter. As Ms. Ross put it in Exhibit 31, “had he truly wanted to ensure the safety of abducted children, he could and should have marched into a police station or CAS office”. Assuming Mr. Crook sent the Abduction Communications, his surreptitiousness in doing so would undercut the concern which I initially entertained that Mr. Crook was, from his delusional perspective, merely engaging in an exposure of the Aubes as wrongdoers. I accept from counsel’s submissions that Mr. Crook, as sender, perceived that the sending of the Abduction Communications was wrong. Moreover, even if Mr. Crook were incapable of an appreciation of the culpability of each consequence of the sending of the Abduction Communications, so long as the Crown proves mental culpability in respect of the sending itself, mens rea is established: R. v. DeSousa, [1992] S.C.J. No. 77 (S.C.C.); R. v.Krushel, [2000] O.J. No. 302 (O.C.A.).
Harassment
There is a case to be made that the complainant wasn’t harassed in this case. It is important to note that 1-criminal harassment is a high threshold.

R. v Alvarez-Gongora, 2014 ONCJ 712,
42 For the complainant to have been harassed or to have felt harassed, it is not enough for the complainant to have been “vexed, disquieted or annoyed”. To have been harassed means to have been “tormented, troubled, worried continually or chronically, plagued, bedeviled and badgered”. I note that these terms are not cumulative. It can be enough for harassment if any one of these terms is established.
It is useful to look at some cases where criminal harassment has been found. We can argue that Mr. Khedr’s behavior isn’t similar.

R. v. Yannonie [2009] A.J. No. 121 2009 ABQB 4 467 A.R. 336

29 The evidence in Sillipp disclosed the following actions on the part of the Accused:
• – the Accused frequently drove past and parked near the home and office of the first complainant (his ex-spouse) and the apartment of the second complainant;
• – the Accused frequently followed the first complainant’s vehicle for short distances and swerved at her vehicle on one occasion;
• – the Accused followed the second complainant’s vehicle for short distances as well;
• – the Accused followed the complainants through several specific locales in St. Albert and Edmonton;
• – the Accused followed the second complainant to the Edmonton International Airport where she was to pick up the first complainant from an incoming flight.

R. v. R.G. [2001] Y.J. No. 12 2001 YKSC 2

51 The point is that conduct which causes a complainant to be “vexed, disquieted or annoyed” is not sufficient. The complainant must be “tormented, troubled, worried continually or chronically, plagued, bedeviled and badgered.”
52 It is clear from the evidence of M.O., Olga Anderson and Bruce Webber that M.O. was harassed. She was fearful and in a state of agitation that caused her to run for several blocks to find a safe haven. Constable Letendre, who attended at the 4050 Fourth Avenue apartment, described M.O. as very scared, anxious and talking quickly. In short, she was not annoyed, but rather, she was tormented, troubled and badgered.
R. v. P.R.B. [1999] A.J. No. 1589 1999 ABPC 158 263 A.R. 90

16 Ms. L.B. described the effect of the defendant’s actions on her and her family in the following words:
I live with my parents. We are fearful for our safety; we’ve had a security system installed in our house. We don’t even feel comfortable going into our back yard without looking over our shoulders. I’m constantly looking in my rear view mirror when I’m driving. It’s a very uncomfortable situation to say the least and I’m fearful for my safety. Like I said, he’s very unpredictable and I just don’t know what to expect next.
Looking at the totality of the defendant’s conduct, including the content of his voice-mail messages, and accepting the foregoing evidence, I am satisfied to the requisite standard that the complainant was indeed harassed.

2-This is related to the requirement that the victim must fear for her safety or someone else close to her. Either proving lack of fear or lack of harassment is good enough, both seem to rely on similar criteria.

R. v. Raymond [2014] Q.J. No. 2193 2014 QCCQ 1833

36 But here, the evidence only shows the complainant was on stress or on edge. She was uncomfortable. She did not have peace of mind.
38 The Crown did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the accused caused the complainant to fear for her safety or the safety of anyone known to her.
A case where fear wasn’t found.

R. v. Hnatiuk [2000] A.J. No. 545 2000 ABQB 314

41 However, as was pointed out in Sillip, in order to convict an accused of criminal harassment, it is not enough to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct troubled or badgered the complainant, the court must also be satisfied that the conduct caused the complainant to fear for her safety or the safety of anyone known to her and the fear must, in all of the circumstances, be reasonable.

42 The evidence in this case fails to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Haavaldsen reasonably feared for her safety. In fact, the evidence does not establish that Ms. Haavaldsen feared for her safety. Indeed, when the worst of the conduct occurred, which was the threat which occurred during the mediation, the Haavaldsens decided to continue with the mediation. When the mediation was unsuccessful, the Haavaldsens continued with their life, as before. The evidence establishes that they were annoyed by the Hnatiuks, but they were not in fear of them. Ms. Haavaldsen testified, for example, that she continued to go outside, continued to tend her garden, continued to meet her children, continued to walk her dog, etc. Ms. Hnatiuk has argued that the Haavaldsens “gave as good as they got”; the evidence may not go that far, but certainly the evidence establishes that the Haavaldsens were not in fear of the Hnatiuks.
2-Multiple cases stress that to establish criminal harassment, it is necessary to examine the background and context and the details of the relationship.

R. v Alvarez-Gongora, 2014 ONCJ 712,

44 When the Court is considering whether the elements of the offence have been made out, the approach is a contextual one. It is a question of fact for the Court to determine in each case. The Court must consider the conduct that is the subject of the criminal harassment charge against the background of the relationship and the history between the complainant and accused.

R. v. P.M.B. [2011] B.C.J. No. 2499 2011 BCPC 370

10 In order to examine whether the elements of the offence are made out, the court must look beyond the letters and their content and examine the context in which they were written.
Misc

R. v. Wease [2008] O.J. No. 1938 78 W.C.B. (2d) 381

29 The trial judge acknowledged that Mr. Wease did not actually know Mrs. Wease considered herself harassed. (might have some utility for us) Having acknowledged this, however, the trial judge found that the appellant was, at the very least, reckless or willfully blind, “in my opinion, and I think clearly willfully blind in this matter.” He points out that in the appellant’s testimony he made it clear that he, “just didn’t care what effect his actions would have upon the complainant”, and in the trial judges opinion that, “clearly amounts to an admission of willful blindness and by his very acts, I think, he can also be taken to be reckless as to whether or not Mrs. Wease was harassed. Therefore, the third essential element has also been established beyond a reasonable doubt in this matter.”
30 The evidence, however, must be taken in context and it is my view that it does not support such a finding.

R. v. Davis [1999] M.J. No. 477 143 Man.R. (2d) 105

Talks about subjective and objective fear

R. v. Pringle [1999] O.J. No. 3704 43 W.C.B. (2d) 487 No. 982384

14 In the case at bar, the “proscribed conduct” is that specified in para. 264(2)(b) of the Code, to wit, “repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them”. Within the charge period, there are 2 written communications, eligible for consideration (Exhibits #1 and #3). I have considered all of the evident pre-charge period conduct of Accused toward Complainant, and find it to amount to no more than non-criminal “workplace harassment” (might have some utility, seem to be different kind of harassments), as between co-employees, notably weird and eccentric behaviour, but not manifestly “criminal” nor “threatening”.

03 January
0 Comments
Sticky

Expert Witness

Posted by Rory
in expert evidence

Expert Witnesses

 

A recent case I found to be very troubling. Thankfully, the judge made the right decision and refused to allow the evidence of an expert witness to be admitted to the jury.

In R. v. Calnen [2015] NSSC 330 the Crown sought to tender the opinion of an expert witness, a medical doctor, Dr. Marnie Woods, about the cause of death of the deceased. Let me say at this juncture I am troubled that the Crown would attempt to lead this type of evidence.

The case concerns a fall from a flight of stairs. The defence theory was that the fall caused the death of the deceased. The crown sought to tender expert evidence which went to “the cause and manner of death”.

Doctor’s Opinion

The doctor stated:

“instantaneous death after such a fall would be distinctly unusual given my experience and the reports described in the reviewed literature” but qualified her opinion “many variables and individual factors must be considered … it is not reasonable to describe one expected outcome … the ability to comment more specifically on this case is limited by the absence of a body [she did not examine the body]”.

If you dissect what the doctor is saying here, she is really saying nothing at all. Her evidence can be rewritten as follows:

falling from a flight of stairs usually doesn’t cause death but I can’t be certain that it didn’t in this case because I haven’t seen or examined the body.

The judge in this case found that the doctor’s evidence was too speculative to have merit. Rather, the judge was persuaded by another doctor’s opinion that the evidence sought to be tendered was “anecdotal” and that the cases Dr. Woods referenced were “unpublished”.

I am reminded of how important the scientific method is, and how in this case it was violated in many respects. The scientific method calls for a theory which can be tested. Results are then published so that they can be re-tested and scrutinized via peer review.

In this case the Crown doctor had a theory. She did not examine the body or review the medical history of the deceased to test her theory nor did she use published cases in support of her theory. The doctor’s opinion runs afoul of the scientific method.

Finally, in this case the judge also did not allow the expert evidence because it went to the ultimate issue of the case – murder v accident.

13 October
0 Comments
Sticky

Pat-Down Searches

Posted by Rory
in Pat-Down Searches

Pat-Down Search

Until 2004 the scope of police powers regarding their authority to do pat-down searches was uncertain.

In fact, as a law student I particularly found this area of the law especially interesting. Since 2004, the contours and limits of pat-down law have been for the most part well defined. Some recent cases have re-ignited the scope of the pat-down search.

1993

Up until 1993, in Canada, a police officer had no power or authority to conduct a pat-down search on a person unless they had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest that person for an offence. I have no doubt that as a matter of routine, pat down searches were conducted all the time, under the genuine concern for officer safety or perhaps as a ruse or guise to search for evidence. In the latter case such a search would really have been conducted on nothing more than suspicion, an educated guess based on “officer experience”.  In any, event prior to 1993 a bright line existed in the law: detention of a person and search was only permissible if a police officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest a person.  In 1993 in a case called R. v. Simpson (1993) 12 O.R. (3d) 182 the Ontario Court of Appeal decided that the police did not have what they termed “articulable cause” a term borrowed from U.S. jurisprudence to stop and do a pat-down search on the individual they were stopping. In that case, police followed a suspect from a known drug house. They stopped his vehicle, and did a “pat-down” search located narcotics. The Court excluded the evidence and held that the police did not have articulable cause to stop and search for investigative purposes which they defined as:
. . . a constellation of objectively discernible facts which give the detaining officer reasonable cause to suspect that the detainee is criminally implicated in the activity under investigation.

Although Mr. Simpson was acquitted, this decision ushered a new era in Canadian police enforcement. For the first time, a Canadian Court recognized a police power that fell below the status quo level “reasonable and probable grounds”.

2004

In 2004 the Supreme Court of Canada rule on a case R. v. Mann 2004 SCC 52 and endorsed the Simpson decision but replaced the terminology of articulable cause with “reasonable grounds”. The Court held that a pat-down search was permissible but only to the extent necessary to secure officer safety. A police first had to genuinely feel it necessary to conduct a pat-down search for his/her safety. Second, the search would not allow him to search pockets or objects on a person that were non-threatening. For example, a handbag may be searched or patted down but unless an hard object is felt inside the bag there would be no reason to open up the bag.

2015

Some recent cases have questioned the police practice of doing pat-down searches when investigation persons for impaired driving offences. See for example R. v. Schwab 2015 AJ No 903. Simply, if a motorist is transported to a police vehicle for a screening test (assuming that transport is valid), what gives a police officer the right to conduct a pat-down search on the person as a matter of practice?

Certainly, we have not heard the end of the pat-down search issue in relation to impaired driving cases. I will eagerly await an Appellate case and post if one becomes available.