A BRIEF BOOK REVIEW ON WHAT A BOOK CAN DO: JONATHAN RUDIN’S INDIGENOUS PEOPLE AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: A PRACTITIONER’S HANDBOOK  

When I read a superb book, I want to share it. Although I do read e-books, the delight in owning a paper book is its quality of collectiveness. I can share it with family and friends with the hope a critical dialogue can ensue. As a law professor, I can enthusiastically recommend it to my students. When I read a well-written, insightful and impactful book, I don’t want to keep it to myself. The book I am about to discuss, Jonathan Rudin’s Practitioner’s Handbook on Indigenous Peoples and the Criminal Justice Systempublished by Emond Publishers, is one such book. It is a carefully written book for a broad audience of legal practitioners on complex legal issues. Yet it is also a compassionate book, profoundly articulating the failures of our profession and legal system to address historic and continuing wrongs against the Indigenous people of Canada. 

First a note about Jonathan Rudinwho has dedicated his life’s journey to the recognition of our legal failures in our relationship with Indigenous people. His pathway through this book has been straight and true as he himself created legal institutions and legal principles, through his professional work at Aboriginal Legal Services, to ensure no Canadian forgets these failures. He has worked hard to turn these failures into positive developments. This book is indicative of his work and a testament to it. 

The book opens as any legal treatise might by offering a literature review highlighting the systemic issues. But this is no ordinary literature review as page after page, Rudin summarizes each of the 13 Inquiries and Reports tabled since 1989, which have ruminated on Indigenous people in the criminal justice system. Starting with Donald Marshall Jrand ending in the 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Report, it becomes evident that for almost 30 years our system has expounded on these legal failures. It is equally clear, that for an equal number of years we have done little to nothing to change the gross inequalities inherent in our society which have caused those failures. There are an inordinate number of recommendations and a paucity of resulting change. This singular truth haunts the reader and compels us forward as we read page after page of case law steering us through those failures which have come to us through excruciatingly slow and deliberate steps. 

And yet for all of our legal slowness, the impact of Gladue, as discussed in this book, is not so much celebrated as it is waved as a flag of defiance in support of a future that will move faster and with purpose. The purpose being to eradicate the discriminatory practices which have given the statisticaltruths of Indigenous overrepresentation in our legal systems their quality of hardness and bitter remorse. In the last part of the book, we revel in the promise of the extension of Gladueprinciples into every nook and cranny of our legal systems. From sentencing to bail and beyond into military and civil justice, we see a glimmer of what our law can be should we take up the task offered by this book. Indeed, no lawyer even on the margins of practicing law, should put this book aside without thought to what they can do to bring about meaningful change.

Meaningful change can be found in this book. Woven between the pages are suggestive kernels of knowledge that each of us can take back to our law practices, court rooms, and law schools. There is, for example, a telling passage on Aboriginal English (and French), taken from the ground breaking work of Australian Socio-linguist Diana Eades, which can leave one with the kind of “aha” moment needed to create innovative approaches to intractable problems. There are many such veil lifting moments in this book.

Another change moment appears in the chapter dedicated to Indigenous courts as organic entities, holding the promise of a more responsive and proportionate Canadian legal system. This chapter holds real meaning for me, as on June 21, 2018, The Donald Marshall Junior Centre for Justice and Reconciliationwas opened on the Nova Scotian Wagmatcook Reserve. The Centre holds provincial and superior courts incorporating Indigenous justice traditions and healing. It is the embodiment of the kind of change willed by Rudin’s book.

Often we say that truth is stranger than fiction, in the case of this practitioner’s handbook, we can say that truth, like good fiction, can move us to do great deeds. Although the book can be considered a legal treatise, it shows that the law does not need to speak in code to be understood. It is a book which I will keep on my shelves and unreservedly recommend to any future or present legal practitioner. It is a book for sharing and for shared dialogue on what we can do in our profession to right the wrongs of the past. Most of all, however, it is a book offering the promise of a better future for Indigenous justice to be read and fulfilled by us all.

 

A Fine Balance: Sentencing Suter in the Supreme Court of Canada (Cross posted from ABlawg @ https://ablawg.ca/2018/07/19/a-fine-balance-sentencing-suter-in-the-supreme-court-of-canada/)

Sentencing, Chief Justice Lamer tells us in R v M (CA), 1996 CanLII 230,[1996] 1 SCR 500, atparagraph 91, is “a delicate art which attempts to balance carefully the societal goals of sentencing against the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the circumstances of the offence, while at all times taking into account the needs and current conditions of and in the community.” This sentiment neatly encapsulates all that is sentencing: an ephemeral yet earthy task in which the sentencing judge envelopes themself in a venture engaging both heart and mind. It is a “delicate” process, not heavy-handed, which requires a deft understanding of the human condition within the clarity of legal rules and principles. It is an art, not a science, meaning it is not a base computation or a tallying up of factors given pre-determined weight. Art also suggests artistic freedom and the discretionary nature we nurture in the sentencing process. But it is a determination statutorily mandated with well-defined rules and principles. There is wriggle room but just as we must stay within our lanes while driving, the sentencing judge must not over-correct or act erratically in imposing sentence. There are parameters. Some are, as indicated, statutory, as the “sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender” (s. 718.1of the Criminal Code). Other parameters arise from the profound sense of community that envelopes us when a fellow member breaks our laws – the laws that reflect our fundamental values. We feel the impact of rule-breakers, but we also feel their angst. We all know, to some degree, we too could be similarly situated, both as victim or offender. It is at this tipping point where the sentencing judge’s task becomes even more delicate as it searches for the fair and just balancing of all which is required to impose a fit and appropriate sentence tailored to the circumstances of the offence and the background of the offender. It is this delicate or fine balancing which is at the core of the myriad of issues arising in the newest Supreme Court sentencing decision in R v Suter2018 SCC 34

True to Justice Moldaver’s view, writing on behalf of the majority in Suter, that sentencing is a “highly individualized process” (para 4), the facts in Suterare highly unusual and particularly tragic. Mr. Suter entered a plea of guilty to a charge of failing or refusing to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample pursuant to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code. A young child was killed when the vehicle Mr. Suter was operating crashed into a restaurant’s outdoor patio where the child and his family were enjoying a family meal. As a death occurred, the maximum punishment for the refusal to provide a breath sample was increased to life imprisonment under s. 255(3.2). However, the sentencing judge accepted Mr. Suter was not impaired by alcohol at the time of the incident. Indeed, the events leading to the incident involved a highly charged emotional event in which Mr. Suter and his spouse were arguing in the vehicle. Moreover, Mr. Suter’s refusal to provide a breath sample occurred after he received, incorrectly, legal advice to refuse. The fatality was widely publicized and Mr. Suter was a victim of a disturbing and brutal form of vigilante justice (paras 1-3). 

With this unique and troubling fact situation, the sentencing judge crafted a sentence seemingly far below the norm for the offence by imposing a term of four months incarceration with a 30-month driving prohibition. The Crown appealed the sentence to the Alberta Court of Appeal resulting in a substantial increase to the sentence to 26 months incarceration. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted. Unusually, the majority of the Supreme Court found both the sentencing judge and the court of appeal were in error (paras 5-6), resulting in the Supreme Court re-sentencing Suter (para 5). In the majority’s view, a term of 15 to 18 months incarceration was appropriate (para 103). However, as re-incarceration would cause undue hardship, it was “in the interests of justice” to impose a sentence of time served, amounting to 10 and a half months incarceration (para 103). The sole dissent of Mr. Justice Gascon found the sentencing judge imposed a fit and appropriate sentence and committed no error in law (para 109). He too allowed the appeal in part but restored the original sentence. Both the majority and the dissent upheld the sentencing judge’s imposition of a 30-month driving prohibition (paras 24, 104 & 202). 

With these facts firmly in mind, the issues arising in the case are as unique as the facts and the ultimate outcome. The issues do not arise from the facts but flow from them. There is a difference. In appellate advocacy, the appellate lawyer combs through the reasons, issue spotting and identifying arguable points based on knowledge of the types of appellate issues, which regularly arise in an appeal. For instance, are there grounds for an unreasonable verdict? Did the trial judge reverse the burden of proof in convicting the offender? These are just a couple examples of the specific appellate issues arising from a case. This is not to say that there may not be identifiable non-appellate type issues, such as errors involving substantive elements of an offence, but again those too would be easily spotted and seen to be arising from the facts. In a parallel manner, the appellate decisions based on these grounds swing from one issue to the next. Uniquely, in Suter, the issues flow and are not uniquely identifiable. There is no issue spotting as the legal issues move steadily and continuously resulting in the sensation that the Supreme Court’s treatment of this appeal flow. 

On this basis, setting out the myriad swirling of issues flowing from this decision is no easy task. Identification is also encumbered by the presence of a vocal dissent. In any event, on a meta-view of the decision, the first bundle of issues directly flow from the sentencing of Mr. Suter. One such point of discussion is on the use of vigilante justice, also characterized as a collateral consequence, as a mitigating factor in the sentencing balancing exercise. In Suter, the sentencing judge relied upon the incident in mitigation of sentence while the Court of Appeal found the judge erred in doing so. Both the majority and dissent in Suter agree that vigilante justice, as a non-state collateral consequence, was a mitigating factor to be balanced with all other considerations in arriving at a fit sentence. Justice Moldaver, however, restricted the use of such a collateral consequence to prevent “legitimizing” such illegal behaviour by accepting it as part of a legitimate legal process (para 58). Justice Gascon found the sentencing judge properly balanced the incident in arriving at a fit and appropriate sentence (paras 105, 109, 113-114 & 150).

The issue of the effect of Suter’s quasi-mistake of law can also be identified in this first sequence. I use the descriptor ‘quasi,’ meaning in this context, “apparently but not really” not for pejorative reasons but to emphasize what is at the root of the different world views between the majority and the dissent on this point of law. Neither Justice Moldaver nor Justice Gascon clearly and cogently describe what mistake of law truly is in legal terms. To be sure they discuss around the concept and drop hints, some large hints, of what their working definitions are but the reader is never entirely certain from where each position is starting. Without knowing the legal principles around this legal construct, it is the justification for the ultimate conclusion that becomes the legal construction of mistake of law. This serves to reinforce the feeling that this decision flows in a non-traditional legal judgment manner. Instead of starting with what mistake of law is in legal terms, involving academic scholarship (Glanville Williams comes to mind) and case law (mistake of law versus mistake of fact, colour of right and officially induced error have a large body of case law discussing the substantive issues) including a statutory analysis (s. 19, albeit there is a sparse discussion of this in the dissent), the Court presumes the principles and relies on the justification or their interpretation of whatever legal status they have given the term. Justice Gascon does come closer by challenging Justice Moldaver for this lack of a principled approach (para 125) but does nothing concrete to reverse the time machine and go back to the essentials of what mistake of law is in light of legal principles (paras 125 to 128). Instead, Justice Gascon fashions a template of his own in paragraph 128, in which he creates a sliding scale of blameworthiness based on a range of knowledge that could be attributed to Suter. Thus, the case authority discussion is derailed by the Court not focussing on the issues and instead allowing their decision to be pulled by the current of reasoning, justification, and the issue-spotting of errors found in one another’s reasons. 

Context is one reason why neither the majority nor the dissent gives clear direction on the mistake of law. This mistake of law, based in Suter’s reliance on bad legal advice to not provide a breath sample, is only notionally acting as a defence in order to provide mitigation of sentence. It is not acting as a defence per se. The slurring of the legal meaning of mistake of law is understandable considering the focus is not on the mistake, as operating as a defence impacting guilt or innocence, but as a mitigating factor on sentence to be balanced with all of the other sentencing considerations. Unfortunately, by not approaching the issue in a principled fashion, by allowing the reasoning to be the de facto substitute for those principles, we are never clear as to when and how mistake of law can be used on sentencing generally. The Supreme Court, as the final arbiter of all that is law in Canada, has not given us rules to live by or even rules to apply. 

The analysis of the mistake of law issue is an important one as it provides the dominant mitigating factor on sentence. Without a clear indication of the basis of this mitigation, the balancing is tainted, and the sentence imposed is rendered unfit. Using incomplete defences, which would not amount to a full defence to the charge, in mitigation of sentence is appropriate. This was not disputed in Suter (para 64 of majority judgment and para 125 of dissent and see dissent of Justice Gonthier in R v Pontes1995 CanLII 61 (SCC), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 44 at paras 75 and 87 and the Court in R v Stone,1999 CanLII 688, [1999] 2 SCR 290). The twist in Suteris the general unavailability of mistake of law as a defence unless it falls, as discussed below, within an exception such as mistake of mixed law and fact, colour of right and officially induced error. Again, without knowing the premise of the mistake, in law, we are unsure if the mistake is being used at sentencing as a defence that could not be proven at trial or as a defence unavailable at trial.

There is glancing discussion by Justice Gascon on s.19 of the Code which sets out the admonition that ignorance of the law is no excuse (para 127). There is, however, no discussion of when a mistake of law can be a defence such as when it is a matter of mixed fact and law (see R v Manuel2008 BCCA 143 at paras 16 and 17), a colour of right (see Justice Moldaver’s decision in R v Simpson2015 SCC 40, [2015] 2 SCR 827), or officially induced error such as in Lévis (City) v. Tétreault2006 SCC 12 , [2006] 1 SCR 420. Not referencing the Lévis decision is a surprise as it is that decision in which the Supreme Court outlines the very strict requirements for the defence of officially induced error, a defence traditionally only applicable in regulatory matters. A reliance on another person for knowledge of the law seems to fit squarely within the Suter form of mistake of law. Yet, there is no discussion in Suter of this point. We do not know under what form of mistake of law the Court is considering. Is it officially induced error as Justice Gascon seems to be suggesting or is it an honest but mistaken belief in law? Is the issue a mixed law and fact, permitting a defence? Or is it a question of scope and interpretation of the law, which is a feature of mistake of law? Does it even matter if the defence is available in law or not or what it may consist of if we are in the sentencing hearing stage where the procedural and evidential standards are relaxed? These and many questions are simply left out of this decision to be filled in by speculation.  Again, there are hints to their approach as the issue of the lawyer’s incorrect advice and the reliance on it is a point of discussion and disagreement. 

To be sure, duty counsel or Brydges lawyer (referring to R v Brydges1990 CanLII 123,[1990] 1 SCR 190, in which the Supreme Court found the state must provide an accused access to a lawyer upon arrest to comply with s.10(b) right to counsel under the Charter) does not, according to case law, fulfil the Lévisrequirement that the official who gives the legal advice be a government official authorized to speak on the issue. In R v Pea, 2008 CanLII 89824(ON CA) and R v Beierl2010 ONCA 697duty counsel was not considered an official for purposes of the defence. This point, seemingly at issue in an officially induced error scenario, was not discussed in Suter just as the defence itself was not directly raised.

Also, not fully discussed is the Pontesdecision, referenced earlier in this post, in which Justice Gonthier, for the dissent, enters into a principled discussion of the operation of s. 19 of the Codeand thoroughly discusses instances where a mistake of law may be a defence to a strict liability offence (paras 71 to 80). Although Pontesis decided in the context of regulatory offences, Justice Gonthier considers an earlier Supreme Court decision in R v Docherty, 1989 CanLII 45 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 941, on the required elements of the then Criminal Code offence of wilfully failing or refusing to comply with a probation order. In his analysis in paragraph 75 of Pontes, Justice Gonthier relies on Docherty for the contention that ignorance of the law may provide an excuse where knowledge of the law is part of the mens reaof the offence. The evidence of an accused’s lack of knowledge of the legality of the breach would negate a “wilful” failure or refusal to comply. There is no discussion in Suter on the mens rea required for the offence for which Suter entered a plea and subsequently this aspect was not raised.

There is another telling dimension to the mistake of law approach. Throughout the dissent, Justice Gascon calls the offence “administrative” (paras 107, 172, 181, 183, and 201) signalling his belief the offence is more akin to a regulatory matter. This characterization renders the mistake of law defence even more applicable based on its broader usage in the prosecution of regulatory matters where knowledge of a large body of regulation is difficult. Yet, the Suter offence is in the criminal code and is not regulatory. To characterize this offence as administrative in nature deflects the issue away from the reason behind the offence not just as an incentive to assist police in the investigation of impaired driving crimes but to provide a disincentive to refuse to do so in order to escape criminal or civil liability. Courts have characterized this offence in a similar way (see R v Seip,2017 BCCA 54 at para 36).

This result-oriented perspective occurs to such an extent in Suter that we are not even sure to what standard of proof the mistake of law must be proven for the mistake to be considered in sentencing. This missing piece acts to magnify the differences between the majority and dissent. Justice Moldaver enters into a discussion of Suter’s sincere and honest belief in the mistake (paras 62-70) akin to a mistaken but honest belief assessment needed for the defence of mistake of fact. Conversely, Justice Gonthier focuses on the bad legal advice, without which, Suter would not be in court, making Suter’s “moral blameworthiness ... infinitesimal” (para 174). No one meaningfully articulates the commonalties, other than mistake can be considered on sentence. It is as if the Court is working backward from the sentence to the mistake itself. This backward glance is the source of friction between the two decisions and is most readily apparent in their perception of the importance of the legal advice on the mistake.

This framing of the so-called mistake of law scenario leads into the very different perspective on the bad legal advice given to Mr. Suter. Justice Moldaver pins the mistake of law on Suter in terms of his belief of what the law required. In the majority’s construction of legal rights and responsibilities, it is the individual and their personal choices that control the effect of the law. Justice Moldaver takes a hard-line in finding a paucity of evidence on the true substance of the legal advice given and counters that absence of evidence with the presence of the police officer, who fulfills his Charter duty by cautioning Suter to provide a sample or face the consequences of a criminal charge. To take this position in the context of a sentencing hearing, where evidential and procedural rules are relaxed (see R v Lévesque2000 SCC 47, [2000] 2 SCR 487) shows a clear desire to minimize the impact of the mistake, in whatever form it is in.  

Justice Gascon pins the mistake on the duty counsel lawyer and then frames Suter’s duties within a Charter framework. The dissent leans on the Charter as an explanation for why Suter was acting under a mistake of law relying on Charter protections not as stand-alone arguments where rights are breached but to provide the basis for inferences as to why people choose to do what they do. Thus, Suter’s failure to blow, despite the police officer’s dire warning that a failure will result in a criminal charge, is waved away by Justice Gascon as a reasonable response of an accused to information from an agent of the state – the very agent who is attempting to build evidence against him. This emphasis on the state as the bad actor so to speak builds a much different narrative than the majority. It also fails to acknowledge some case authorities that have tackled the issue of officially induced error where the police caution to provide a sample is confusing (see R v Humble2010 ONSC 2995). Again, we are on uncertain ground by not knowing what the mistake of law is predicated on and who the “authorized” officials are in the scenario. The Suter decision is directionless on this and yet the appeal provided a perfect opportunity to provide clarity on these issues, despite the uniqueness of the fact situation. 

Nestled within these correlated issues and directly arising from the sentencing hearing, flows the discussion on the application of the 2015 Supreme Court decision on sentencing principles, R v Lacasse2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 SCR 1089. Where Suter is set in a unique factual circumstance, Lacasse involves the all too often scenario of impaired driving causing death. There is, sadly, nothing unique about the facts there. Indeed, the Lacassedecision is broadly based and serves to clarify general sentencing principles and the role of the appellate courts in considering a sentence appeal. Suter, while applying Lacasse, resurrects some of those self-same issues. Notably, Justice Gascon dissented with the then Chief Justice McLachlin, giving Sutera déjà vu flavour. Some might even say based on Justice Gascon’s dissent, that far from applying Lacasse, the Court in Suteris doing just what Lacasse attempted to avoid – the “tinkering” of the quantum of sentences at the appellate level. In Suter, as in Lacasse, moral culpability, proportionality and gravity of the offence drive the foundational underpinnings of the decision.

The next issue, flowing from the first two, involves the larger discussion on the role of the Supreme Court in sentencing appeals – not just appellate courts – but as the court of final appeal. This is not just a purely jurisdictional discussion as found in R v Gardiner1982 CanLII 30 (SCC),[1982] 2 SCR 368, and as distilled by Chief Justice Lamer in paragraph 33 of the M(CA)decision. This is a complex interplay between the roles of trial courts versus appellate courts in determining fitness of sentence that flows beyond jurisdiction. Appellate intervention is hierarchical yet infused with deference. Deference to the trial judge is a continual appellate theme, as it symbolizes the core of our common law justice system. This is a system where judicial parameters are laid down in principle but not rigidly adhered to. There is, as mentioned at the start of this post, wriggle room for the judges to apply their own common sense and discretion, based naturally in law so as not to be unreasonable or erratic. It flows from judicial independence and from a desire to inject into the process a good dose of humanity in the form of equity. 

Deference to the trial judge in Suter becomes not just an issue arising from the appeal but becomes a tool used by the dissent of Justice Gascon (paras 161 – 178). For Justice Gascon, the majority becomes a court of first instance as they exercise their own discretion, wielded through their own judicial lens by sentencing the accused ab initio. All of this, to Justice Gascon’s chagrin, to ‘tinker’ with the sentencing judge’s perfectly principled original sentence. Justice Gascon goes so far as to ‘call out’ Justice Moldaver for obfuscating the real reason for the increased sentence imposed by the majority as a pandering to the public/government’s tough on crime agenda, particularly in the area of impaired driving (para 159). This deference is hard won as Justice Gascon himself admits that he would have “personally ... weighed the gravity of the offence more heavily than the sentencing judge” (para 170). His challenge to the majority is a clear indication that the court is divided philosophically, politically and legally. Deference in Suter becomes not just trial judge deference but deference to the Rule of Law, to the independence of the courts and to each other.

Indeed, Justice Moldaver commences his reasons by applying an earlier Supreme Court case, R v Mian2014 SCC 54, [2014] 2 SCR 689, on the scope of appellate review (see my earlier blog posting on the issue on my ideablawg website). Mian raises the spectre of a reasonable apprehension of bias at the appellate level when the appellate court raises issues not identified by appellate counsel. In Mian, it is not so much the raising of the new issue which is problematic but raising the issue without giving counsel the ability to respond. In Justice Moldaver’s view this opportunity was given in Suter

But flowing from the Mian concern is the additional problem or error of the court of appeal in sentencing Suter for offences of which he was not charged (paras 35 to 44). The procedural concept of an appellate court raising new issues on its own motion becomes an error in law as the court of appeal created a “novel and confusing” form of impairment “by distraction” akin to a careless driving or dangerous driving delict (para 38). According to Justice Moldaver, by doing so, the court of appeal was “circumventing the sentencing judge’s finding that this accident was simply the result of “non-impaired driving error” (para 38). Again, deference to the trial judge re-appears, as finding of facts is the province of the trial judge, who lived and breathed the evidence, not the appellate court, who merely reads it. This is particularly important in sentencing as a sentencing judge can sentence an accused on uncharged offences arising from the facts, but those aggravating features must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see R v Angelillo,2006 SCC 55, [2006] 2 SCR 728). There is a further concern with this position as it reflects on Justice Gascon’s concern with the majority’s decision to re-sentence Suter. Sentencing as an art is a collage of facts and principle where the emotional content of the accused’s background and the gravity of the offence colour the decision-making. Who better to do this than the original sentencing judge.

Indeed, who better? Briefly looking at previous sentence appeals decided at the Supreme Court level, the re-sentencing of Suter is unique. The Court may remit the matter back to the trial judge for imposition of sentence where the Court enters a conviction overturning an acquittal (see for example R v Bradshaw, [1976] 1 SCR 162,1975 CanLII 19 (SCC)Rv Audet, [1996] 2 SCR 171, 1996 CanLII 198 (SCC),and R v Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 SCR 330, 1999 CanLII 711(SCC)). The Court may also remit the matter to the lower appellate court for re-consideration pursuant to that court’s power under s. 687 of the Criminal Code to vary the sentence imposed (see for example Lowry et al v R, [1974] SCR 195, 1972 CanLII 171 (SCC)and R v Loyer et al, [1978] 2 SCR 631, 1978 CanLII 194 (SCC)where the Supreme Court ordered the matter back to the court of appeal to pass a new sentence upon hearing of sentencing submissions by counsel at page 204). Rarely does the Supreme Court re-sentence an Appellant but never before has the Court found both the trial judge and the court of appeal to be in error in the fitness of sentence imposed (according to my Canlii database search). The Supreme Court has no direct statutory authority to impose sentence as in the case of a provincial court of appeal. 

Although re-sentencing in toto has not happened previously, the Supreme Court has adjusted a sentence. For instance, in R v Morrisey[2000] 2 SCR 90, the Court varied the sentence to properly account for pretrial custody. Also, the Court has adjusted a sentenceto bring it into conformity with a joint submission on sentence such as in R v Anthony-Cook,2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204. Prior to Suter, the closest the Court came to imposing a sentence is in R v Middleton,2009 SCC 21, [2009] 1 SCR 674, where Justice Cromwell, dissenting in part, found the sentence to be illegal but refrained from deciding what sentence he would impose considering the outcome of the appeal per the majority’s decision (see paras 112 -113).

Justice Gascon, to put it mildly, did not approve of this re-sentencing. As mentioned earlier, he found the new sentence imposed by the majority to be effectively a non-sentence as it amounted to time served. Consistent with this view, Justice Gascon labelled the majority’s decision as a “stay” of the sentence (para 158). The Supreme Court has stayed the passing of sentence in previous appeals but not in conjunction with re-sentencing, such as in Suter, where the Court actually applies sentencing principles and balances the required considerations to arrive at an actual sentence quantum. In R v LFW2000 SCC 6, [2000] 1 SCR132 for example, the Court found the conditional sentence was inappropriate and a term of incarceration was required. The then Chief Justice Lamer stayed the passing of that imprisonment as the offender had completed the conditional sentence and it would be “very difficult” for the sentencing judge to re-sentence (para 32). In another decision, the Court restored but stayed a conditional sentence order where the offender had already served the period of incarceration ordered by the court of appeal (see R v RNS2000 SCC 7,[2000] 1 SCR 149). Suteralso differs from R v Fice, [2005] 1 SCR 742, 2005 SCC 32 (CanLII), where the Supreme Court found the court of appeal erred in upholding an illegal conditional sentence order but stayed what would otherwise be a penitentiary sentence. The Court in Ficedid not enter into a sentencing assessment and the stay appeared to be with consent of all parties (para 46).

It should also be noted that the concept of imposing time served on a sentence appeal even if a longer sentence was appropriate is not unusual. Provincial appellate courts of appeal regularly take into account whether it would be in the interests of justice to re-incarcerate the Appellant when a sentence appeal is allowed (see R v Reddick1977 ALTASCAD 199 (CanLII)at para 4; R v Mann1995 CanLII 321 (ON CA)and R v Maxwell-Smith2013 YKCA 12(CanLII) at para 21). What is unusual is the fact that it is the Supreme Court doing it. Justice Moldaver, who sat as a trial judge and as a court of appeal justice, is very familiar with sentence appeals and the pragmatic outcomes needed. We see in Sutera clear division along the lines of practical realism on one hand and principled rule-based approaches. 

The last set of issues flow from the previous ones as we read between the lines of this judgment. Such a close reading reveals both this Court’s approach to criminal law and the sense of discordant approaches within the Court itself. Examples of this can be seen in the majority and dissent positioning around mistake of law and deference. It is also viscerally read in the tone and approach of Justice Gascon’s dissent with a specific part dedicated to pulling apart the majority’s position to the point of parsing in all of its minutiae the majority’s reasoning (paras 156 – 159). This dissection reminds me of the Supreme Court’s own caution not to cherry-pick or parse a trial judge’s reasons but to view the whole of the reasons in determining whether an error was occasioned and if there is an error, the significance of it (I discuss this more thoroughly in a soon to be published paper in the Manitoba Law Journal entitled The W(D) Revolution). Justice Gascon’s dissent shows this is easier said than done.  

This extensive point by point response to the majority and even the majority’s anticipatory responses to the dissent belie a tension hitherto not seen to such a degree in the Supreme Court. Even in the heady days of the Nineteen- Nineties when the court was fractured, there was a sense the Court was still attempting to talk to us, the legal community, albeit disparately, about the legal principles. Suter feels different. In Suter the judges are airing their laundry so to speak and speaking as they probably do behind closed doors where they engage in no doubt vigorous debate about the issues. Is this the transparency Chief Justice Wagner is encouraging from the Court? Or, as parts of this judgment feel, is this exclusionary as the legal community becomes the child in the room who can sense the tension from the parental tone of voice but cannot understand the meaning of the words? In some ways we are not privy to the deeper discordance that may lay behind this judgment – perhaps the differences between principal and pragmatism, which seems to permeate this judgment.

This leads us finally to a discussion of not what lies between the lines but how those lines are written and the judgment as a unique literary device that may challenge our idea of how the law is not only decided but also represented in Canadian case law. I mentioned this earlier, but the judgment reads as a discourse in which the majority and dissent write for themselves and between themselves. This may suggest an American approach where the SCOTUS render opinions, not judgments, and as such tend to be opinionated in their approach by consistently responding to one another either directly in the opinions or through footnotes. Whether Suter signals a change in writing style and approach will be a matter of record as this newly minted Wagner court renders decisions on decisive issues. 

This decision is important. It discusses novel issues in a novel way. It exhibits an approach from the Supreme Court which we have not seen before. It impacts an area of criminal law in much need of legal discussion considering much of what a trial judge does in criminal law focuses on the criminal sanction. But the Suter decisionis wanting as it leaves us wanting more. Sentencing is a delicate art and requires a fine balance between oft opposing principles. So too, a Supreme Court judgment requires that self-same balance to help us navigate our clients through the legal maze. Although Suter fails to achieve this balance, it does leave a legacy of the further work which needs to be done by the legal community 

DISPENSING SPEEDY JUSTICE: THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA & DECISIONS FROM THE BENCH

Recently, I was asked to comment on the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on R v Stephan2018 SCC 21. The decision, given from the Bench immediately after the argument of the appeal, took many media outlets by surprise. The media, and to a large extent, lawyers, are not accustomed to speedy decision-making from the Supreme Court. We collectively expect the Court to reserve judgment and then, after months of diligent research and writing, the Court issues an unassuming missive that the judgment will be rendered on X date at Y time. I have often waited at my computer close to the appointed hour in order to immerse myself in the expectation of a new judgment release. For instance, I eagerly awaited the release of R v Marakah[2017] 2 SCR 608 and R v Jones[2017] 2 SCR 696, at 9:45 a.m. ESTto be first in line to the lines of decision-making, which would, we all hoped, reveal the answers to the perplexing issues raised by the s. 8 issues surrounding the seizure of text messages found on a 3rdparty’s smart phone. True, the Supreme Court could disappoint as reality often does not live up to expectations. But at least we had 200 paragraphs on which to mull over how we should have or ought to have known better. So, when the Stephandecision was rendered so quickly, I began to wonder if this was a trend on the part of the Supremes or whether it was merely my own biases coming into play. I was determined, therefore, to see if in fact the Supreme Court is rendering from the Bench more often than in the past and if so, why.

First, I need to reveal my bias. This bias is based on a self-made presumption on the differing roles of a trial court and an appellate court and on the hierarchal stature of those courts as ingrained into me through law school and legal practice. The baggage I come with is this: that trial courts are a messy affair where the hubbub of provincial court requires speed over judicial consideration in contrast with the quiet decorum of the sparsely populated appellate courts filled with robes and lacking in lay observers. This perception of justice is overlaid with a leap in logic that in retrospect may be an improper inference: that the noisy and boisterous trial court, which dispenses speedy justice is not engaging the law writ big but is merely applying the law given to it by the bigwigs. This kind of decision making doesn’t take long does it? The idea of a reserve in the trial courts is not as welcome as in the appellate arena as it spells unconscionable delay for a client with the charge hanging over her head or, even worse, it has some ominous meaning which cannot possibly result in a good outcome. But, the appellate courts, struggling with the law, now they should take their time to render a true and just decision. We want them to read, contemplate, to hear and consider and then to write so we can all take it in. Of course, we have the hybrid superior court where the pace is less frenetic and more scholarly – we will except somedelay there but only for trial matters, applications and such must be dealt with summarily.

As outlined, this bias may result in the impermissible inference that what happens in provincial court doesn’t matter but what happens in the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court must matter because, well, they take so long. Or do they? After the release of Stephan,I was determined to find out. 

I started with an analysis of 2018 from January 1 to May 21. There are 12 criminal law judgments rendered by the Supreme Court with 8 of those decisions given from the Bench, orally, immediately after the hearing of the appeal. Out of those 8 oral decisions, 3 of the appeals (R v GTD,2018 SCC 7R v Black2018 SCC 10,  R v Stephan2018 SCC 21) are allowed resulting in new trials. Two of 3 appeals allowed are from the Court of Appeal of Alberta. 

A Bench decision, does not mean unanimity; 3 of the 8 decisions have dissenting positions from one member of the panel (R v GTD,2018 SCC 7with Chief Justice dissenting, RA v Her MajestyThe Queen2018 SCC 13with Justice Gascon dissenting, R v Cain2018 SCC 20with Justice Côtédissenting). Seven of the 8 Bench decisions, are from appeals as of right, as appeals, not requiring leave, on a question of law arising from a dissent in the lower appellate court.  Only 1 decision R v Seipp2018 SCC 1, was a dismissal after receiving leave to appeal. On the civil side, there are 10 judgments released thus far this year with only 1 judgment dismissing the appeal from the Bench but with a dissenting decision (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 773 v. Lawrence2018 SCC 11). Of note, 1 of the judgments released with reasons, R v Magoon2018 SCC14, was an appeal heard and dismissed, with the co-accused’s appeal R v Jordan2017 CanLII 80438on November 27, 2017, but with an indication by the Court that reasons would follow.

As an aside, of the 4 criminal appeals with written reasons, 2 cases are from the Court of Appeal of Alberta. In R v Canadian Broadcasting Corp., theCourt considered whether the CBC must delete publicly accessible information on a case for which a publication ban was issued after the publishing of that information. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, unanimously reversing the majority decision of the Court of Appeal and upheld the decision of the chambers judge who dismissed an application for a mandatory interlocutory injunction to order the deletion of the information. The other written decision, is the previously mentioned R v Magoon, which was dismissed unanimously. Of the 12 decisions rendered on criminal cases this year, half of those are from the Court of Appeal of Alberta. 

What does all of this mean? At first blush, there appears to generally be a large number of appeals going to the Supreme Court from Alberta. The reason for this is due to s. 691, which gives an offender the right to appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law where a judge of the court of appeal dissents. Four of the 8 oral judgments are from Alberta as appeals as of right under s. 691(1)(a) based on a dissenting decision on a question of law. The other 3 as of right appeals with an oral decision are from the Ontario (with 2 cases) and Nova Scotia appellate courts. What we can infer from this that there are a large number of dissenting decisions, on a question of law, from the Court of Appeal of Alberta. This can then lead to an inference that this higher number of dissenting decisions in Alberta are leading to a larger criminal case load in the Supreme Court. As the majority of the appeals are as of right and are not heard on the basis of leave involving issues of national importance or due to conflicting decisions from province to province, they do not engage the deep analysis needed from the Supreme Court as the final court of appeal. 

This propensity to deal with the higher caseload by rendering immediate decisions from the Bench, may also however be directly connected to a new cultural shift in the post-Jordanera. The Supreme Court must administer their court, as they admonished the lower courts to do, efficiently and effectively. Timeliness is a key feature of the s. 11(b)unreasonable delay decisions of R v Jordan, [2016] 1 SCR 631and R v Cody[2017] 1 SCR 659and that timeliness depends upon the administration of justice and court management. In many ways, the Supreme Court by setting an example of a hard-working court who reviews written material in advance, who is able to retire after hearing argument to make a final determination on legal issues, is signalling to the lower courts, including the appellate courts, that efficiencies can be found. 

In an effort, therefore to dispose of the volume of appeals, heard as of right, in a timely manner, the Supreme Court is dispensing their decisions on these cases more readily from the Bench. In so doing, they are essentially choosing “sides” by indicating whether they substantially agree with the majority or the dissent. They are, however, not only leaning on the lower court decisions in these oral judgments, but are often adding brief oral reasons, highlighting the basis for their decisions. For instance, in the most recent decision of R v Stephan, the Court agreed with the dissent of Justice O’Ferrall but briefly particularized the basis of that agreement. More substantial oral reasons were given in R v GTD,2018 SCC 7, again from Alberta, but on the issue of a breach of the Appellant’s right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charterand whether the violation should result in the exclusion of the statement under s. 24(2). Here, the majority of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal against conviction and reversed the majority decision of the Court of Appeal of Alberta This was a significant decision as it found a right to counsel violation when the police officer fails to “hold off” in questioning the accused where the accused indicates a desire to exercise their right to speak to a lawyer. The statement in that case was given after the Appellant was read his right to counsel with an indication he wanted to exercise that right, but the officer immediately proceeded to ask if he had anything to say, a usual question asked at the end of the standard caution. This “standard” practice was not only a violation but one in which the Court found was serious enough to require the statement given to be excluded under s. 24(2). Although a brief oral judgment, this was an important one. 

However, this rush to judgment may not always be satisfactory. Although, R v GTDoral decision is clear enough, the oral reasons in the Stephancase seem to leave us wanting more. In that case, the Appellants were convicted by a jury of a failure to provide the necessaries of life to their young child under s. 215 of the Criminal Code. The majority of the Court of Appeal for Alberta found no error in the instructions to the jury, relying on the familiar case law tropes which urge appellate courts to view the so-called error in the context of the whole charge to the jury, to not be blinded by formulaic instructions but to look at content over form and to keep in mind that a jury charge need not be error free or “perfect” (paras 43 to 44, 86 to 87 & 105, 108 & 135). 

In contrast, the dissenting Justice O’Ferrall found much wrong and little right in the instructions to the jury. At paragraph 212, he calls the instructions on the essential elements of the offence “confusing, misleading, and deficient.” The charge was so “problematic” (para 212) that it gave the jury ‘little choice but to convict” (para 214). Specifically, Justice O’Ferrall commented on the failure of the trial judge to explain what would constitute a “failure” to provide the necessaries of life and whether that so-found “failure” would amount to an endangerment of the child’s life (paras 226 to 243). These concepts were key to proving the actus reus elements of the offence and needed clear and separate attention rather than the collapsed discussion of those elements offered to the jury. He also identified an error in the trial judge’s lack of explanation of the mens rearequirement of the offence, which required proof that the Appellants conduct was a marked departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent parent (paras 244 to 272). The trial judge failed to not only explain the meaning of the term but also failed to connect to that term the relevant trial evidence on the issue. 

The Supreme Court agreed with the dissent of Justice O’Ferrall by stating from the Bench in a decision given by Justice Moldaver, known as the ‘criminal law judge’ on the Court, that

In particular, we agree that the learned trial judge conflated the actus reus and mens rea of the offence and did not sufficiently explain the concept of marked departure in a way that the jury could understand and apply it.

Considering the issues raised by Justice O’Ferrall, this case would have benefited from a written decision on what the legal meaning of “failure” is in the context of s. 215 specifically but also generally in the context of offences that require an omission to act rather than a commission. Additionally, an analysis of the meaning of the term “marked departure” would further clarify an area of law, namely objective mens reaoffences, which calls out for clarity. Although the Supreme Court in R v Beatty, [2008] 1 SCR 49, went a long way in ending a decades long argument in the Supreme Court on what form of liability criminal negligence is (objective) and that no personal characteristics are imported to the reasonable person construct, it did not provide a meaningful description of what a marked departure, in reality, would be. The best Madam Justice Charron, speaking for the majority, could do was to articulate what “marked departure” was not. It is not a form of civil negligence. It is blameworthyconduct that amounts to penal negligence (para 6). That may help but whether that would in reality help a jury decide is another matter. 

In fact, I often explain “marked departure” in class spatially, showing the difference between being off the standard civilly and being off the standard markedly as a difference in space between my outstretched hands. That usually garners a giggle or two in the class, but there are more than giggles when I then demonstrate the “marked and substantial departure” standard for s. 219 offences. The laughter is often short-lived when the students struggle to articulate the differing standards on an exam. Even with an application of facts to the standard, which should assist in the discussion, the students feel a sense of vertigo when trying to apply the law to the facts. The Stephancase would have been a perfect opportunity for the Court to set things right and give those who must apply the law a meaningful standard on which to base their decisions. 

This brief foray into the 2018 bench decisions has revealed some interesting possibilities as to why lately there just seems to be so many oral decisions rendered from the Supreme Court bench. Those reasons may be procedural (appeals as of right), may be jurisdictional (large number of dissenting decisions from the Court of Appeal of Alberta), may be a push to become aligned with the post-Jordanera or may be a combination of all three. Certainly, there is a need to go further in this analysis to determine what 2017 looked like and whether this is the ‘new look’ of this new court now lead by a new Chief Justice. There is also a need to determine if this change did indeed happen after the release of Jordanor whether this a hiccup due to dissension in the Alberta appellate court. Whatever the true reason is, there will still be a need for the Supreme Court to act as the final arbiter of the law to give clarity in those areas where we need direction and to not just speak the words of justice but to dictate them as well.

 

Some Initial Thoughts on the Senate Report on Criminal Justice Reform

Is delaying justice, denying justice? Yes, but the delay is a denial for all not just specific groups. Justice Cory in Askov recognized the societal dimension to a speedy trial. Although s. 11(b) is couched as an individual legal right, it is in fact a value we all share and an interest involving the public good. We all have a stake in justice and therefore we are all impacted when justice fails us. I have said this many times before – admittedly almost like a broken record – but what is as stake, when the justice system fails, is who we are as a nation. In our 150th year we need to look toward a cohesive and responsive future, which respects all citizens. To me respect comes from a robust and mindful justice system that provides access to those who need it and confidence to those who do not. Thus, the priority in the Senate Report to properly fund Legal Aid across the country should be, in my view, a number one priority.

Law reform is about “best practices.” Indeed, the interim Senate Report from August 2016 and the one now placed before us speaks of this.  “Best practices” is about excellence, integrity and confidence. It is about innovation and alternate strategies. Keeping this in mind, the Senate Report makes fifty recommendations to reform the justice system but identifies thirteen as uniquely pressing and urgent.

In my view, the highlight of these recommendations are the alternate strategies, looking at the administration of court in a subtle way or rather in a different way. Do we need to be bound by the traditional court structure or is there more we can do? Can we borrow from other cultures? Can we bring something that will work better? These innovative forward looking recommendations deserves attention and should receive heightened importance. Under this rubric, we can see many of these thirteen priorities as connected, such as the effects our justice system has on our Indigenous peoples of our country. Can we not learn from their unique perspective and collaborative approach?

Additionally, taking notice of mental health and the fact that substance abuse may go hand in hand with this issue is another priority that connects with innovative strategies and to me is extremely timely and urgent.  The increase of fentanyl use and the carnage resulting from it needs to be addressed. Again, specialized courts and embedded treatment centres id badly needed to address and alleviate the pressure on the justice system.

Again, connected to the above, is the call for a hard look at what needs to be criminalized under our Code. A better and smarter approach to what behaviour needs to be underlined by the criminal law will streamline the system and increase public confidence in the administration of justice. Often administrative penalties can provide the incentive to change behaviour where the criminal law cannot or does not.

Increased and better use of technological change is a must and is an integral part of court innovation. We have technology now but is it being used in the best way? Are we ensuring that the use of technology is sustainable and manageable? Are we providing the right incentives for all stakeholders to use the best practices when it comes to technology? This needs to be explored.

The idea of “judicial officers” to do some of the work of a judge or justice requires a deeper look. It is attractive and it can work to focus the system on those issues that need judicial oversight. However, we must ensure that such a change will not simply be shifting the work elsewhere. A simple shift will not change the culture of the court system.

I have not commented on some of the priorities which cause me concern. The issue of whether there is an alternate remedy under 24(1) to a stay is a complex issue. As a defence lawyer, I am hard pressed to envision an alternate remedy when the Charter breach involves the administration of justice, the most egregious type of Charter violation. Such a violation engages fair trial and full answer and defence concerns. It is a violation that recognizes potential for miscarriages of justice. It is a weighty issue which will need to be explored further by the courts and by me as well in a future blog posting.

Also, my view of the need to retain the preliminary inquiry causes me concern with the recommendation to restrict or end the process. I have spoken on this issue before and written about possible alternatives such as permitting a civil form of questioning where the inquiry is not to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for trial. The preliminary inquiry, as I wrote in my blog on the Stinert decision, is not just an archaic vestige of the past but can be an important safeguard in our justice system which has its roots in the all-important principle of the presumption of innocence. We must be cautious in moving away from such a protection.

I will end my initial thoughts here with a promise to delve deeper into the “big picture” of the law reform in a future posting. In the meantime, I encourage everyone to review the Report and to start thinking about what kind of justice system they envision for Canada.  

 

 

 

Can R v Antic “Bail” Out The System? A 150th Birthday Wish

R v Antic is a welcome decision from the Supreme Court of Canada. No one can argue with a re-affirmation of what is at the core of our criminal justice system – the presumption of innocence. Justice Wagner neatly reminds us of the key role that the principle of fundamental justice has in our adversarial system. Indeed, one can argue that the presumption of innocence is at the very heart of our system and reflects a cherished societal value. That value is not just a “legal” one but a moral one as well. To presume people are essentially “good” is a comforting thought and one we should promote and celebrate. But, as recognized in the Antic decision, we tend to forget the “good.” This type of “reminder” is needed in the courts of law where justice is meted out in often chaotic circumstances. “Justice” happens in times when the court list seems endless and in circumstances where the parade of in-custody accused make it difficult to separate them into individuals. The Antic decision should make for a pause that is welcome.

Antic not only assists in humanizing the system but also in ensuring the courts, when faced with a heavy case load, are mindful of the authority it wields. The “ladder of liberty” approach the judicial interim release section creates is not something to be side-stepped or even two-stepped. Each rung must be deliberately weighed before proceeding onward and if a rung of the ladder feels “right,” if the weight placed on it works, then pursuant to section 515, the journey stops. It stops because reasonable bail is constitutionally guaranteed. It stops because the presumption of innocence is weighing in on the side of justice. It stops because it should.

 

Bail is complicated. If you ask any Provincial Court Judge what exactly they do day in and day out, they will tell you two things: bail and sentencing. The beginning and end, so to speak. These two procedures are the book ends of our justice system and without the proper use of them, the whole structure can fall and fail. In the post-Jordan fall-out, we need to be aware of these bookends and what a culture of complacency means as it relates to the proper administration of justice. Are we missing something then when we point fingers at trial delays or is it merely part of the heavy weight the system feels as it climbs up the rungs of the ladder.

 

Antic should then be a call to action for everyone. A call to be ever mindful of the underlying core values that push our justice system along and that make it an integral part of our unique Canadian democracy. In a few weeks, we will be celebrating our 150th year as a nation. We should at that time also be re-committing ourselves to the Charter values that define us and bring us together as a nation. This includes respect for the proper administration of justice through our commitment to make the system better for all those who walk its halls. This can and should be done by all stakeholders working together for, as Justice Wagner described it, an “enlightened criminal justice system.” Let’s take direction from the highest court and instead of resisting change, let’s make it happen. This is my birthday wish for Canada. Let’s blow out a candle and see it done.

What is Advocacy?

December is a time for reflection. Law classes are over and marking begins in earnest. It also a time of anticipation as I ready myself for the University of Calgary, Faculty of Law Advocacy “block” weeks starting the first week in January. This is a compulsory program for the 3Ls, which originally was taught over the course of an intensive week to introduce students to fundamental trial skills. Two years ago, I was approached by Alice Woolley, the then Associate Dean, to take on the program as part of the faculty’s curriculum renewal involving the integration of experiential learning and performance-based studies into the regular law school offerings. The advocacy program was already just that - hands on and practice orientated - but it needed something else to make it unique and to make it the capstone course for the new curriculum.

To do this, we placed those fundamental skills in the context of a real trial scenario. In the past, at the end of the block week, the students would present their case before a “trial judge.” The focus then was not on the trial itself but on the presentation of the trial skills. After the course revision, the trial became more than the vessel for the skills, it became the culmination of those skills. Instead of the students performing in court, they interacted with the case in a meaningful way. They learned to appreciate the effort required to take on a complex file for a client. They began to recognize that being a lawyer does not entail simply getting up on your feet and performing. Rather, the students understood that being an effective lawyer involved connecting the fundamental skills with legal knowledge, common sense and ethical obligations of the profession. They realized that the skills themselves are but a piece of the trial puzzle.

I like to think the advocacy course is not about advocacy skills but is about being a skilled advocate. This concept is best explained by Justices Cory, Iacobucci, and Bastarache in R v Rose. The issue in the case involved the timing of a jury address in a criminal case. Pursuant to s. 651 of the Criminal Code, the defence, if they chose to lead evidence, would be required to address the jury first. In the case of Rose, the Crown, who addressed the jury last, impugned the accused’s credibility leaving the defence unable to respond to the allegation. On Rose’s appeal against conviction for second degree murder, the defence argued the jury address requirement under s. 651 infringed section 7 as it denied the accused’s right to make full answer and defence.  The SCC was split 5 to 4 on the decision with Cory, Iacobucci, Bastarache JJ writing the slim majority decision (although Gonthier J concurred with them, Madame Justice L’Heureux-Dube wrote her own concurring judgment) made the following general comments on advocacy in paragraph 108:

“Skilful advocacy involves taking the information acquired as a result of the trial ‑‑ the evidence, the other party’s theory of the case, and various other, intangible factors ‑‑ and weaving this information together with law, logic, and rhetoric into a persuasive argument.”

The trio acknowledged the role of persuasive advocacy in a jury trial, but in their view, addressing the jury last would not give the accused a persuasive advantage.

Although, it is the sentiment of the court in this above quoted sentence, which rings true to me and frames my approach to the advocacy course, I would be remiss if I didn’t refer to the dissent decision in Rose authored by Justice Binnie on behalf of Lamer CJC, McLachlin J and Major J. The dissent also refers to the “skillful advocate,” but in their view, skillful persuasion can mean the difference between guilt and innocence. Justice Binnie explains this position in paragraphs 18 and 19:

18 While it would be comforting to think that in a criminal trial facts speak for themselves, the reality is that “facts” emerge from evidence that is given shape by sometimes skilful advocacy into a coherent and compelling prosecution. The successful prosecutor downplays or disclaims the craftsmanship involved in shaping the story.  Such modesty should be treated with scepticism. The rules of “prosecutorial” advocacy have not changed much since Shakespeare put a “just the facts” speech in the mouth of Mark Antony:

 

For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth,

Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech

To stir men’s blood; I only speak right on.

I tell you that which you yourselves do know,

Show you sweet Cæsar’s wounds, poor poor dumb mouths,

And bid them speak for me.

 

Julius Cæsar, Act III, Scene ii.

19 While few counsel would claim Shakespearean powers of persuasion, the fact remains that in an age burdened with “spin doctors” it should be unnecessary to belabour the point that the same underlying facts can be used to create very different impressions depending on the advocacy skills of counsel.  In the realities of a courtroom it is often as vital for a party to address the “spin” as it is to address the underlying “fact”.  As was pointed out by the late Justice John Sopinka, in “The Many Faces of Advocacy”, in [1990] Advocates’ Soc. J., 3, at p. 7:

Notwithstanding that your witnesses may have been reticent and forgetful, and your cross-examinations less than scintillating, the case can still be won in final argument.

Certainly, there is a difference of opinion in the power of persuasion. Yet, I believe both the majority and the dissent are right about the importance of a skillful advocate at trial.

The quote from Shakespeare (as an aside read my previous posting on the use of verse in court decisions – Poetic Justice) leads me even further back in time to find support for the skillful advocate. Socrates, famous for his unapologetic jury address and his wit, employs persuasion in both senses as described in the Rose decision, albeit ultimately to no avail. The ancient Greeks and Romans were of course the masters of rhetoric. Although some may question their form over content approach, it is useful to recall Quintilian, the Roman rhetorician, offering advice to the new orator. In book 3.5 of the Orators Education, Quintilian suggests there are three aims of the orator: to instruct (docet), to move (moveat) and to delight (delectrat).  Cicero, who is Ancient Rome’s best known orator, left many examples of his skillful advocacy in his writings on oratory. Although his advice, to the modern reader may appear at times contrived and overly formalistic, his emphasis on invention, preparation, and strategy is still relevant today. Hortensia, also an admired Roman orator, further enhanced the ancient art of advocacy by imbuing it with a sense of social justice.  

Yet, there is no need to go so far back in time to find examples of great advocacy: Queen Elizabeth I and her rousing Tilbury speech, the deliberate yet inspirational speeches of Abraham Lincoln, Clarence Darrow’s home spun ingenuity, the fictional flare of Atticus Finch, the legendary appellate lawyering of J.J. Robinette, the written advocacy of Madame Justice Wilson, the consummate advocate G. Arthur Martin, and of course, the courtroom “pugilist” Eddie Greenspan. These are just a few of those skillful advocates who can inspire us to think beyond what is possible and be humbled by the power of persuasion.

What is advocacy? It is a mixture of knowledge, preparation, and persuasion. It requires a clarity of thought and a need to have the courage of your convictions. It requires vision, professionalism and passion. This is what I hope our new law school graduates will achieve in January 2017.

 

 

 

 

 

The Scope of Appellate Review and Reasonable Apprehension of Bias: The Supreme Court of Canada in the Mian Decision

What occurred in the Mian case is not unusual: the Appellate panel hearing an appeal seizes on an issue, one not raised in the Appellant’s Factum, and raises it during the course of argument. indeed such an occurrence is a sign that the panel hearing the appeal has read the material and is thinking about the case or at least they have their own ideas about the case. Admittedly, many years ago I won a difficult conviction appeal, based on the near impossible ground of errors in the credibility assessment, when the then Chief Justice Dubin of the Court of Appeal for Ontario seized on a construction of the facts he found absurd, the appeal was thus allowed on the basis of an unreasonable verdict and an acquittal entered. However, there is, as the Mian case warns, a limit to appellate interference, which is very much connected to the concept of judicial deference but also ultimately to the “risk of injustice” should the court not act on its own accord.

The ultimate conclusion should an appellate court not heed this warning is the possibility that the court’s best intentions lead to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Such a scenario, that an appellate court shows bias, is rare indeed. Typically, it is the appellate court considering whether or not the trial judge exhibited the bias, not the appellate court itself falling into the aura of unreasonableness.  Although, the SCC did not expand on this possibility, the test in such a scenario, per Justice Cory’s decision in the 1997 RDS case, would require a consideration of “whether a reasonable and informed person, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances, viewing the matter realistically and practically, would conclude that the judge’s conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Certainly, one can imagine a situation in which an appellate court ‘s zeal for an issue, not raised by either parties to the appeal – perhaps for good strategic reasons – could lead to such an apprehended bias. As stated by the then Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Hewart, in the 1924 English case of R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY,  “it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” Of course “justice” here in the Mian case is balancing on a fine line as justice must not only be seen to be done in the scope of the appellate review but justice must also be done in the very decision the appellate court makes. In other words, to refer to another aphorism, albeit it a crass one, the court may be “damned if they do and damned if they don’t.” Thus, a reasonable apprehension of justice may arise by the court’s interference in the appellate process by raising a new issue on their own volition, yet if they do not do so, they run the “risk of injustice” should the issue not be independently raised.

In the WG case, the SCC in 1999 did in fact consider possible bias at the appellate court level – in that case on the part of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal. The issue was one of jurisdiction and whether or not the appellate court had the inherent jurisdiction to raise an issue pertaining to the sentence imposed, when the appeal was purely a conviction appeal and neither parties raised the issue of fitness of sentence. To this, the then Chief Justice Lamer, speaking on behalf of the majority, responded with a resounding “no.” However, Chief Justice Lamer did expand on the notion of whether or not, if the court cannot go it alone so to speak, could the court “invite” counsel to raise the issue. On this subsidiary issue the Chief Justice was also clear in stating that such an “invitation” should not be given as the appellate court should not go beyond raising questions during oral argument. Even an independent reference to the issue should not appear in any appellate reasons, although an innocuous comment by the court indicating that the issue of sentence was not raised by either parties on appeal, may be appropriate.

This “approach” by the SCC in this case acknowledges the deference to counsel and counsel’s strategic or “tactical” reasons for raising or not raising an issue on appeal. In the view of the Chief Justice, this approach also “avoids an apprehension of bias.” which the Newfoundland Court of Appeal failed to do when they expressed “discomfort” and “unease” with the sentencing process in the appellate reasons on conviction. In the WG case, the appellate court went further and ordered the parties back to argue the fitness of sentence. Thus, the apprehension of bias crystallized into a very real bias. Interestingly, in this case, the appellate court’s concern was with the harshness of the sentence and thus, presumably, would have shown a bias against the Crown, not the offender.

Finally, take note of the context of Mian, which called out for the SCC to “call out” the appellate court. Mr Mian was acquitted at trial on the basis of violations of his section 10(a) and (b) rights under the Charter. It is therefore in the context of an acquittal that the Court of Appeal of Alberta raised the new appellate issue of defence counsel’s cross-examination as a point of departure for the appellate review. This “new” issue, in the view of the SCC, could not be tied to the trial judge’s decision to acquit and therefore was not a situation where the appellate court was facing that fine balance, I previously mentioned. To add to the list of aphorisms, perhaps, indeed, “context is everything.” 

Making A Split-Decision In The Supreme Court of Canada

Last month the Supreme Court of Canada released their statistics covering the last decade of decisions. The graphs make interesting reading if you want to know how long it takes for decisions to be rendered or which provinces send the most appeals. If those issues are not at the top of your must-know list, the graph on the number of unanimous decisions versus split decisions may be the graph to pique your interest. The lowest percentage of split decisions in a given year was in 2006, where 20% of the cases heard resulted in a dissenting decision. The highest percentage of dissenting decisions occurred in 2007 with 38% of the cases. Last year, 32% of the cases produced dissents.

What could have made these statistics even more enticing would be a break down on who sits in dissent most often and why. Are there thematic connections? Well, of course there are: a justice dissenting on a specific issue would not be expected to change his or her mind if the same or even similar issue arises. However, change does occur, as we know when reviewing the decade of cases from the 1990s on the mens rea requirements for criminal negligence. This change or shift in the court’s decision-making is appropriate and welcome: we want our courts to be reflective of societal fundamental values and this ability for change in legal principles permits this. We also want our jurists to be open to this change, in a principled way, of course. So, analyzing SCC decisions is a way to track change and to better understand the court’s position or change in position on any given issue.

Instead of waiting another decade for these interesting numerical tidbits, I crunched the criminal law numbers for this year. From January to mid-March there have been 13 criminal cases in which written decisions were rendered. Out of the 13 cases, nine of the cases resulted in unanimous decisions. Quite frankly these unanimous decisions are very short and merely the Court agreeing with the lower level appeal courts. Four cases, however, were split decisions. Roughly, 30.7% of the cases are therefore split or dissent decisions. This percentage is fairly consistent with last year.

 

Now, let’s move away from the empirical side and look at these four decisions for meaning. What kind of split decisions are these?

I have spoken about the Babos case in a previous blog entitled When Dissent In The Supreme Court Matters. This type of split decision, where there is only one Justice in dissent, signifies a fundamental difference in opinion between the majority written by Justice Moldaver, on behalf of the five other justices on the panel, and the lone dissenter, Justice Abella. As such, the dissent is heartfelt and invokes value-laden terms such as the “exceptional assault on the public’s sense of justice” in the face of “egregious state conduct.” Justice Abella, with her background in human rights, is speaking out in a case where her dissent may not really matter in legal principle terms but is a matter with which she disagrees “on principle.” I would call this a “moral/ethical” decision.

The MacDonald case is more benign. It is a “true application” decision. The disagreement does not involve a direct disagreement on the issue at hand but a disagreement on the true or correct application of previously decided legal principles. Thus, the dissent written by Justice Moldaver and Justice Wagner with Justice Rothstein concurring takes umbrage with the majority’s application or misapplication of the Mann case, decided a decade earlier, on the reasonableness of protective police searches. Ironically, Justice LeBel, who wrote the majority decision, was a member of the majority Mann decision. The dissent does not fail to appreciate this irony when they write:

The majority in this case purports to apply Mann.  Respectfully, however, it does not.  Instead, it renders Mann redundant, depriving police officers of the limited search powers they need to protect themselves and the public in fluid and often unpredictable situations of potential danger.

Such a case leaves the legal profession wondering if the Court can’t apply its own case properly, who can? Keep an eye on how this decision, which did not cause the flurry of attention in the legal profession it should have, will affect trial matters in the lower courts.

In Sekhon, the court considered the admissibility of a police officer’s “expert” evidence on drug couriers pursuant to the Mohan criteria. Although, both the majority decision, written by Justice Moldaver, and the dissent, written by Justice LeBel (notice how quickly the tables turn in the SCC in terms of who is in the dissent and who is in the majority!), agree that the evidence was inadmissible, the differences come in the application of s. 686(1)(b)(iii) and whether the appeal should be dismissed as there was no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. Again, both the majority and dissent agree on the basics: that the admission of the evidence was not a trivial error. However, in Justice Moldaver’s view the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and therefore it is within the public’s interest not to send the matter back to trial considering the costs to the criminal justice system. Justice LeBel agreed “that ordering a new trial places demands on judicial resources,” however, “this cannot override the appellant’s right to a fair trial based solely on admissible evidence.” In Justice LeBel’s view, the inadmissible evidence went to the very issue before the court – the guilt or innocence of the accused. This kind of decision is the “tug of war” decision.

Finally, the Hutchinson case is the “throw-back” decision. What did we say in Mabior again? While this case does not re-litigate the issues, as Mabior was a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice McLachlin, it does build upon some of the key pronouncements in that case. Thus, in Hutchinson, the majority, written by Chief Justice McLachlin and Justice Cromwell, agree that sexual assault offences protect sexual autonomy but not absolutely as the “blunt instrument of the criminal law” must be used with “appropriate restraint.” On the other hand, the dissent written by Justice Moldaver and Justice Abella view the protection of the sexual integrity of a person, as the controlling issue in the meaning of consent, within the broader context of public policy. Interesting to see the majority speak of traditional criminal law principles in the context of offences, which, for public policy reasons, are the least traditional criminal law offences in the Code. Clearly, there is much more to be said on the issue and a further “throw-back’ decision would not be unlikely.

So, there is a lot to be said about the court’s decisions over and beyond the simple statistical graphs we review every ten years. I wonder what the next few weeks will tell us? 

Ideablawg’s Weekly Connections: Inside The Courtroom

Although criminal lawyers have an intimate knowledge of the courtrooms in which they practice, what do we really know about courtrooms elsewhere? We assume other courts would be all fairly similar but having practiced in Ontario and appeared in a myriad of courtrooms from Toronto, to Windsor, to Lindsay, and beyond, I can say courtrooms do differ. But how do courtrooms in other jurisdictions look? What about other countries? What goes on in them anyway? Well, thanks to the Internet, there are options and tools to help anyone peek into the inside of a court and to see, and perhaps understand more clearly, what exactly is going on inside.

1.   The International Criminal Court (ICC): I have written about the International Criminal Court in previous blogs, most notably here. This past week, the ICC trial chamber has been hearing the Ruto and Sang prosecution. William Samoei Ruto, the Deputy President of the Republic of Kenya and Joshua Arap Sang, head of operations of Kalenjin language radio station KASS FM in Nairobi, are charged with crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute. Ruto and Sang are being tried for their role in the ethnic violence ocurring after the 2007-2008 Kenyan elections. The ICC distributes a video summary of weekly cases in their video series called “In The Courtroom.” The Ruto and Sang matter is this week’s installment showing the courtroom and the various members of the court as well as excerpts of the testimony of a witness, whose identity is carefully protected through use of a pseudonym, facial pixilation, and voice distortion. After the hearing summary, there is a short explanation about the court process including the possible prison terms and where such a sentence would be served. Not only does this video give us an opportunity to experience a totally different kind of criminal court but it gives us a better appreciation of the difficulties surrounding the prosecution and defence of international crimes.

2.   You Be The Judge: This is a great online interactive tool created by the Ministry of Justice in the UK to explain how a judge sentences an accused. The website allows the viewer to observe various criminal cases and to make interactive decisions, based on various factors, to determine the length of incarceration. The viewer/player experiences the courtroom setting and benefits from a number of “asides” from the Bench explaining the process. Through polls taken during the hearing, the viewer can see, in a risk-free environment, if their decisions are consistent with other viewers and with the sentencing judge. I have used this website in my undergraduate criminal justice classes to show how a sentencing judge uses his or her discretion with the rule of law to come to an appropriate and fit sentence.

3.   The Model Court: In a previous blog, I wrote a short piece on the intersection of law and art based on readings from a group of essays in Thousand Eyes: Media Technology, Law and Aesthetics published by Sternberg Press. In the journal are photographs of the “Model Court,” which is a collaborative research project involving a group of artists, Sidsel Meineche Hansen, Lawrence Abu Hamdan (who does some fascinating aural work in the area of the political role of voice in law called Aural Contract), Oliver Rees (he’s so supercool I can’t even describe what he does, so just check out his website) and architect, Lorenzo Pezzani. The project “uses the structure and technologies of the courtroom to interrogate the signifying and controlling role architecture plays in contemporary art and society.” By offering a “model court” as a container of ideas of “jurisprudence, evidence, and the hidden apparatuses that become the essential constituents of tribunals,” the project extends us beyond the courtroom into a representative space, which pushes the traditional four-wall envelope to give us an alternative view of justice. 

When Dissent In the Supreme Court of Canada Matters

Have you ever wondered about the significance of a dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court of Canada? To use one of their favoured terms, dissenting decisions may be signifiers of “incremental change.” Overtime, however, these dissenting opinions may become the majority decision. Certainly, some of Chief Justice McLachlin’s dissents are an example of this – most recently in the air of reality line of cases – see my previous blog on the issue here. Of course, sometimes a dissenting opinion does not signify change but simply signifies dissent – a vocalization of a differing viewpoint or to use probably a trite yet apt Robert Frost analogy “the road not taken.”  The recent Supreme Court of Canada Babos case on prosecutorial misconduct is an example of when dissent for dissent's sake matters.

Justice Abella’s dissent on the issue makes for powerful reading, invoking the sanctity of the justice system and the high standard we expect from our quasi-judicial prosecutors, who stand on behalf of the state as upholders of society’s fundamental values. Even in the adversarial system, the duties of the Crown prosecutor transcend the arena of dispute, as they must defend the law in the pursuit of justice. Justice does not have a stake in the ultimate outcome of guilt or innocence but does impact how the ultimate outcome is achieved.

This role is, as suggested by Madame Justice Abella, timeless and does not crystallize at particular points of a prosecution but must permeate every action or inaction of the Crown.  As she so eloquently said, “Time is not a legal remedy for a fundamental breach of the Crown’s role, and cannot retroactively cure intolerable state conduct.”  Difficult balancing must be done to fulfill this duty but it is of utmost importance in the viability and credibility of the criminal justice system.

So I encourage you to read the dissent and envision an alternate view where “an exceptional assault on the public’s sense of justice” is deemed worthy of dissent.

Section 11: The Parallel Universe of Criminal and Civil Law: Episode 13 of the Ideablawg Podcast on the Criminal Code of Canada

Today we will step out of our criminal law comfort zone to talk a little bit about the civil law, in particular how criminal and civil law reside in a parallel universe due to section 11 of the Criminal Code.

To start, let’s discuss how civil law and criminal law differ from one another. First, it should be noted that when I speak of “civil law,” I am using this term generously to refer to the legal system controlling private disputes, particularly where there is harm caused either physically (tort law) or through a breach of contractual obligations. Another definition of “civil law” may be the civil law tradition, which comes from the Continental legal tradition (The Napoleonic Code for instance), and involves codified civil statutes governing society, such as found in Quebec.

As you probably already noticed, the main difference between criminal and civil laws is the type of parties engaged in each of these systems. Civil law is between private individuals, whilst criminal is between the state or the government and an individual, although a corporation can also be charged with a criminal offence. Thus, in criminal law we are concerned with public wrongs and harms against society. As, I have mentioned before, the criminal law underlines society’s fundamental values and is reflective of how we view our society at any given time.

As a result of this differing viewpoint, civil and criminal law employ different legal processes, on occasion differing legal rules, and even a different standard of proof. To reflect the specialness of the criminal law, the burden of proof, which is on the state, is beyond a reasonable doubt, and for the civil world it is proof on a balance of probabilities, which is a lower standard of proof than the criminal one.

The civil law also employs some different types of remedies than the criminal law, although sometimes not. Criminal law remedies are about punishment, with the concomitant ideals of retribution and rehabilitation. Typically, civil remedies are about compensation, to ensure the injured party is recompensed for the harm caused. However, there are occasions where these remedies do meet such us in the criminal law when compensation is ordered or in civil law when punitive damages are assessed. This blurring of the lines between civil and criminal law is best seen in the regulatory field of legislation. For further reading on this issue, My Masters Thesis considered the criminalization of regulatory offences and the use of the civil punitive sanction as an alternative.

Now that we understand the differences between civil and criminal, let’s take a look at section 11 of the Criminal Code to try and figure out what it means and what it is doing in our Criminal Code.

Section 11 is entitled Civil Remedy Not Suspended and reads as follows:

No civil remedy for an act or omission is suspended or affected by reason that the act or omission is a criminal offence.

As an aside, a similar section can be found in the 1892 Criminal Code under s. 534. It is under the General Provisions of procedure section of the Code, while the present section 11 is under the General Part.

On the face, the meaning of the section is fairly clear: a civil action may proceed despite a parallel criminal action. In other words, a person charged with an offence can also face a civil suit for his or her actions and that civil case can continue at the same time as the criminal prosecution. However, as discussed in the last two previous podcasts, as the court retains an inherent jurisdiction over its process, a judge, in exceptional circumstances, can suspend a civil case until the criminal matter concludes. The circumstances for such abeyance would involve the right of the accused to a fair trial and the prejudicial effect of a continuing civil case. It must be emphasized that this power is discretionary and there is no automatic right to stay a civil case until a criminal matter is completed.

Another concern for an accused facing a civil suit is the civil requirement for questioning the parties on the suit. Such responses may later incriminate the accused at the criminal trial. However, there is protection for the accused under s.13 of the Charter, which prohibits the use of such testimony in a criminal proceeding, except in a prosecution for perjury or “for the giving of contradictory evidence.” Therefore, the state cannot advance such incriminatory evidence at the accused’s trial unless the evidence forms the basis of a perjury charge or unless the accused testifies at the criminal trial and his testimony at the criminal trial is contradictory to the previous testimony in the civil proceeding. In that instance, the civil testimony does not go in for the truth of its content but can be used to cross-examine the accused on a prior inconsistent statement. However, under provisions in the Canada Evidence Act, an accused must still answer the questions put to him when questioned in a civil case.

There are cases where the civil trial judge has stayed the civil proceeding when the accused is facing criminal charges in the United States. In that forum, the accused, as a Canadian citizen, would not be entitled to invoke the protection of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and would not be protected by the Canadian laws.

Our final consideration is why is the section in the Code. I suggest the section is in place to reiterate the differences between criminal and civil law. The sections speaks of civil remedies or the outcome of a civil case and also a civil suit’s purpose – to enforce a right of the party, which has been harmed, or unrecognized by the other party’s actions. This enforcement is between these two parties – not between Her Majesty and the accused - therefore the action is in respect of different parties. The harm is a private one, and again does not underline the social values at stake in a criminal case. Finally, the standard of proof is lower in a civil suit and therefore a civil remedy may be ordered even if an accused is ultimately acquitted of the criminal case – see the O.J. Simpson trial as an example of this.  So they are different proceedings, for a different reason, making parallel proceedings possible. Finally, there is a desire that civil matters, like criminal cases, be heard in a timely manner to ensure the integrity of the civil system. Of course, with the caveat that, in matters of justice, the criminal case will prevail.

 

 

 

Episode 13 of the Ideablawg Podcast on the Criminal Code of Canada: Section 11

Section 10 of the Criminal Code – Revisiting The Common Law Contempt of Court: Episode 12 of the Ideablawg Podcast on the Criminal Code of Canada

In the last episode, we discussed how codification of Canadian criminal law replaced the common law by prohibiting common law offences but with the exception for the common law offence of contempt of court. Section 10 continues this conversation by providing a mechanism for appealing this lone common law offence to the applicable provincial appellate court. This is therefore a procedural section to ensure that the common law offence, which sits outside of the Criminal Code, is nevertheless subject to the rules of fundamental justice as found in the Code. As straightforward as this section may be, there are two items of interest to point out. Section 10 (1) and (2) read as follows:

   (1) Where a court, judge, justice or provincial court judge summarily convicts a person for a contempt of court committed in the face of the court and imposes punishment in respect thereof, that person may appeal

(a) from the conviction; or

(b) against the punishment imposed.

(2) Where a court or judge summarily convicts a person for a contempt of court not committed in the face of the court and punishment is imposed in respect thereof, that person may appeal

(a) from the conviction; or

(b) against the punishment imposed.

There are two contrasts in this section: first, subsection 1 speaks of “contempt committed in the face of the court,” while subsection 2 refers to contempt “not committed in the face of the court” and second, subsection 1 applies to a “court, judge, justice or provincial court judge,” while subsection 2 applies to a “court or judge.” So, what do these differences mean?

Let’s work through the second contrast first. In order to understand the different wording, we must look to the definitions of these words. Obviously, subsection (1) is broader than subsection (2) as subsection (1) not only refers to “court” and “judge” as does subsection (2), but it also applies to a “justice or provincial court judge.” As we already know from the beginning of these podcasts, section 2 of the Criminal Code is the general definitional section. According to that section, “justice” is:

justice of the peace or a provincial court judge, and includes two or more justices where two or more justices are, by law, required to act or, by law, act or have jurisdiction;

and

 “provincial court judge” is:

a person appointed or authorized to act by or pursuant to an Act of the legislature of a province, by whatever title that person may be designated, who has the power and authority of two or more justices of the peace and includes the lawful deputy of that person.

“Judge” and “court” are not defined under s. 2 but they are general terms used throughout the Criminal Code. When the Code speaks of a specific level of court, then the specific term such as “provincial court judge” or “judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction,” which in Alberta would be the Court of Queen’s Bench, is used, or a specific section is referred to such as “a judge as defined in section 552.” However, once that primary designation is given, the Code may then further refer to the entity as simply a “judge.” So “judge” may be interchangeable with any level of judges, except a justice of the peace, who is referred to as “justice” and never “judge.” I would therefore suggest that the meaning of “judge” depends on the context of the section.

The context for our purposes is supplied by the other difference between these subsections, the concept of contempt committed in the face of the court and contempt not committed in the face of the court. We have, in fact, visited this issue already. You may recall in the previous episode, I discussed the differing jurisdiction between the provincial courts and the superior courts. The provincial court derives its jurisdiction from statute, which is the source of its power. Conversely, the superior courts such as the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta have inherent jurisdiction or intrinsic powers outside of statute, conferred through the common law. There is no exact description or even limitation of these inherent powers. Legal scholars have been singularly unable to give an all-encompassing definition of the inherent jurisdiction enjoyed by the superior courts but the procedural jurist Sir Jack Jacobs, Q.C (Senior Master of the Supreme Court – England, who was a visiting professor at Osgoode Hall Law School) comes closest in his 1970 article entitled "The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court" wherein he mused that:

For the essential character of a superior court of law necessarily involves that it should be invested with a power to maintain its authority and to prevent its process being obstructed and abused. Such a power is intrinsic in a superior court; it is its very life-blood, its very essence, its immanent attribute. Without such a power, the court would have form but would lack substance. The jurisdiction, which is inherent in a superior court of law is that which enables it to fulfill itself as a court of law. The juridical basis of this jurisdiction is therefore the authority of the judiciary to uphold, to protect and to fulfill the judicial function of administering justice according to law in a regular, orderly and effective manner.

Thus this inherent jurisdiction, which cannot be abrogated by the government, is, I submit, the reason the Criminal Code protects the common law contempt of court process. But it is also the uniqueness of the common law offence of contempt of court, which results in the Code exception. Common law contemptdoes have a Criminal Code equivalent in s. 708 contempt of court. But this equivalency is in name only. Section 708 is specifically limited to a witness who fails to attend or remain in court in order to give evidence. Conversely, the common law offence of contempt of court, although not specifically delineated, can be any act, which interferes “with the due administration or course of justice” as found in the 1983 Alberta Court of Appeal Vermette case,  which was upheld by the SCC. There are, however, different classifications of the common law offence and that is where the concept of contempt in the face of the court and contempt not in the face of the court arise. This is also where the differences between inherent jurisdiction and inferior jurisdiction intersect with the differing kinds of common law contempt.

The SCC Vermette case helps to explain these differences. According to the decision, although the provincial court has some jurisdiction to control its own process through a common law contempt charge, this jurisdiction is limited to contemptuous acts within the four walls of the courtroom. Thus, inappropriate acts committed in the presence of the provincial court judge or “in the face” of the court could form the basis of a common law contempt charge. On the other hand, the superior courts by virtue of their ancient and essential inherent jurisdiction had the additional power to cite an individual for contempt ex facie or not in the face of the court, meaning outside of the presence of the judge. It is important to note however that even for those acts committed outside of the court’s presence, the acts must connect to the court’s process. There is no common law contempt without the court as the aggrieved party.

Looking back to section 10, we can now understand why the section refers to both categories of common law contempt to ensure a mode of appeal for both.

I would like to make one more comment on the section as it relates to a judge “summarily” convicting the accused of the common law offence. This refers to the immediacy of the procedure as the court deals with the matter as soon as the judge cites the person for the contempt. There is no formal arrest and the accused does not follow the usual paths of the criminal justice system. There is no right to a jury trial. For more information on this summary process, see the 2003 SCC Arradi case.

 

Episode 12 of the Ideablawg Podcast on the Criminal Code of Canada: Section 10 - Revisiting Common Law Contempt of Court

A Long Holiday Read On Section 8 And Section 9 Of The Criminal Code - Codification vs. Common Law, Is The Criminal Code Big Enough?: Episode Eleven Of The Ideablawg Podcast (And The Text Version!) On The Criminal Code of Canada

Codification can be a good thing: instead of searching multiple statutes to find the criminal offence for which your client is charged, as an English barrister must do, the Canadian lawyer just flips through the weighty but convenient Criminal Code. To be fair to England, they did try to codify their criminal law. In fact, our codified criminal law comes from that English attempt by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen. I say the English "attempt" as even though we Canadians embraced the codification concept, the English Parliament did not. For more information on the history of the Criminal Code and possible reform, I invite you to read my previous blog on the subject entitled The Criminal Code of Canada: Codification and Reform from February 12, 2012.

Codification can therefore provide much needed certainty of the law. There is no guess work with codification – we know it is a crime because the Code says so. Thus, the concept of ignorance of the law is no excuse from the Latin maxim of ignorantia juris non excusat, is crystallized in a compendium of sections of the Criminal Code and even is codified in it as we will see when we discuss s.19 of the Code.

Alas, however, this same reasoning can lead to the conclusion that codification can also be a bad thing. Firstly, codification leaves little room for interpretation. The Criminal Code, as a really, really, long statute, abides by the rules of statutory interpretation, which guides us on the application and meaning of this statute. According to another Latin maxim of statutory interpretation expressio unius est exclusio alterius or “expression of one is the exclusion of the other,” means that what is not written in the Criminal Code is not part of the Criminal Code. This principle is supported by other statutory interpretation rules such as the  plain meaning rule of statutory interpretation, which advises us that the words used in the Criminal Code mean what they ordinarily mean.

These rules have not gone unchallenged and there are interesting articles discussing those issues. For instance, the rule raises the question as to whether or not there truly is an “ordinary” meaning of a word when considering the differing cultures and perceptions of our multicultural nation.

Besides critics of these statutory interpretation concepts, there are other rules of interpretation, which seem contrary to these “closed book” rules, such as the ability of a court to “read-in” words or phrases to a statute to ensure its constitutional integrity. To be sure courts through the ages have read-in phrases and meanings in certain sections of the Code but they have not actually read-in a whole section. 

Thus, through the effect of codification, the Criminal Code captures and defines our criminal law, leaving very little room, if any, for change, unless Parliament so chooses. In this way the dynamic nature of society is not reflected through our laws. Certainly, however our Charter has added a fluid dimension to the Criminal Code by superimposing societal change, albeit incrementally, onto the written word. Instead of a closed book, the Code seems to be more akin to an e-reader, in which the internet can be accessed, on occasion, to elucidate the reader.

The second problem with codification is the isolation of the criminal law from the English common law tradition, which brings with it a rich and varied criminal law. Using another metaphor, codification is like a tree without its roots as common law is an important source of our criminal law. However, the whole purpose of codification would be defeated by the uncertainty caused by permitting the common law to exist outside of codification. How would an accused then know the charge for which he or she was facing without reference to a specific charge found in the Code if unwritten common law could still form the basis of a charge?

This last objection, to permitting the common law to stand as a system parallel to the Criminal Code, is also reflected in our Charter as a principle of fundamental justice under section 11(a) wherein a person charged with a criminal offence has a right to be informed of the specific offence without delay.

Thankfully, the framers of the Code did think of these issues and so we finally come to the sections which we will discuss in this podcast: sections 8 and 9 of the Criminal Code. But first we will look at section 9, which restricts the common law and ensures Canadian criminal law is consistent with the Charter. Section 9, under the heading Criminal Offences To Be Under Law Of Canada reads as follows:

Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, no person shall be convicted or discharged under section 730

(a) of an offence at common law,

(b) of an offence under an Act of Parliament of England, or of Great Britain, or of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or

(c) of an offence under an  Act or ordinance in force in any province, territory, or place before that province, territory or place became a province of Canada,

but nothing in this section affects the power, jurisdiction, or authority that a court, judge, justice or provincial court judge had, immediately before April 1, 1955, to impose punishment for contempt of court.

This section is actually an enabling section as it ensures that the Criminal Code has full force and effect in Canada and that no one can be convicted or discharged with an offence other than an offence under the Code. This was needed as prior to codification, the sources of law were varied and included laws of the United Kingdom, laws particular to pre-Confederation governments, and laws arising from common law.

It is interesting to note that the section bars punishment for these offences as opposed to prohibiting a person from being charged for these offences. I would suggest that the word “charged,” as under s. 11 of the Charter, refers to the laying of an Information against an accused person, an action which comes at the beginning of the criminal process as opposed to “conviction,” which comes at the end. Thus, the protection of this section is triggered at the end of the trial process when an accused is found guilty by the trial judge and a conviction is entered. The triggering words are similar to the ersatz (see my previous podcast/blog where I explain why I use this qualifying adjective) presumption of innocence found under section 6 of the Code. In effect then, someone may be arrested, charged, and tried for an offence under either 9(a) or (b) or (c), and even found guilty, but it is the judicial action after the finding of guilt and immediately before a conviction or a discharge is entered, which section 9 prohibits. As in section 6, the focus is on punishment and is unlike the Charter sections on legal rights, which so assiduously protect the accused throughout the criminal process; from detention to arrest to charges to pre-trial custody to trial and then to acquittal or punishment.

Of note, is section 11(g) of the Charter that gives a person charged with a criminal offence the right

not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations.

This section seems to parallel section 9 but it may be interpreted as giving a broader protection by using the phrase “not found guilty,” and therefore protects an individual before a finding of guilt is made. After the trial judge makes a finding of guilt, the accused is not convicted as he or she may be discharged under section 730 of the Code. Although a discharge is not a conviction, and therefore the accused does not have a criminal record, it is a “sentence” or punishment under the Code. This does seem to be a question of semantics, yet an interesting one to ponder.

There is, however, an exclusion to this decree as the section permits a court to “impose punishment for contempt of court.” Thus, section 9 preserves the court’s “inherent and essential jurisdiction” to cite and punish someone appearing before it for the common law offence of contempt of court. The purpose of preserving this power, according to Justice McIntyre speaking for the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vermette case, was “necessary, and remains so, to enable the orderly conduct of the court's business and to prevent interference with the court's proceedings.”

However, the jurisdiction of the inferior court or provincial court differed from the inherent powers of the superior courts. While the provincial court could only cite someone for common law contempt where the actus reus or contemptuous conduct occurred in the face of or in the presence of the court, the superior court could also use their contempt power in circumstances where the conduct was outside of court or ex facie. This was due to the inherent jurisdiction of the superior courts to maintain discipline within their courts independent of statute as opposed to the provincial or inferior courts whose jurisdiction was purely statutory.

This common law power is still used in courts today, albeit sparingly, and is available even though there are perfectly appropriate charging sections in the Criminal Code, such as s. 139 obstruct justice and s. 131 perjury. I have represented an individual for common law contempt and the unique aspect of the offence is the ability of the accused to proffer an explanation or an apology for the contemptuous behaviour that may be accepted as “purging” the contempt charge. I say “may” as the apology may negate the mens rea required for conviction but a judge is certainly not required to accept an apology as vacating the contempt finding.

Let’s now return to the second section to be discussed today, section 8. We saw how Parliament ensured that the Criminal Code would safeguard an accused’s rights by limiting common law offences and now, section 8, extends this protection by permitting some common law principles, which inure to the benefit of the accused, such as common law defences. In particular, I will read section 8(3):

Every rule and principle of the common law that renders any circumstance a justification or excuse for an act or a defence to a charge continues in force and applies in respect of proceedings for an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament except in so far as they are altered by or are inconsistent with this Act or any other Act of Parliament.

Therefore, all common law defences, unless they are “altered by or are inconsistent with” the Code are available to an accused. The defences specified by the section are “justifications and excuses,” which are complete defences to a criminal charge but apply even though both the actus reus and mens rea of an offence are proven. Although both of these defences are restricted to a reasonable response by the accused to external pressures, they do differ.

An excuse acknowledges the wrongfulness of the action but holds that the accused should not be punished for his or her actions as Justice Dickson stated in the Perka case,

a liberal and humane criminal law cannot hold people to the strict obedience of the laws in an emergency situation.

Examples of an excuse would be the defence of duress, as in the Paquette case, and the defence of necessity as in the Perka case.

Conversely, a justification is where the accused challenges the wrongfulness of the act  as in the circumstances where “the values of society, indeed of the criminal law itself, are promoted by disobeying the law rather than observing it.”

For a fuller discussion on the present law on excuses see my previous blog on duress and the SCC Ryan case entitled Not To Make Excuses, But The Unresponsiveness of the Supreme Court of Canada To The Defence of Duress.

Returning to the exception in the section, which suggests that if the common law defences alter or are inconsistent with codified defences, then the codified versions prevail, we must consider the defence of duress as codified under s.17. As we will discuss when we arrive at s.17, both the common law defence of duress and the section 17 duress are available to certain accused in certain circumstances. We will see that far from the caution that the common law defence where altered or inconsistent cannot stand in the face of the codified defence, the common law defence of duress has actually altered the codified version as a result of the application of the Charter. But we will come to this in due course.

Of course, there is a world of common law defences outside of the Code and outside of the rubric of justifications and excuses such as the common law defence of mistake of fact and the common law defence of mistake of law. Certainly, the common law defence of mistake of fact has been altered for sexual assault offences pursuant to s. 273.2. There are other common law defences, which sadly are sorely underused such as the de minimus defence, or the defence that the law does not consider trifling breaches of the law. These common law defences receive short shrift unfortunately due to the advent of the Charter and the subsequent Charter-weaned lawyers who believe Charter rights are the only kind of defence worth pursuing.

Finally, a note on the legislative histories of these two sections. Section 8 actually was our present section 9 and our present section 9 was the then section 7 until section 6 was re-enacted as the present section 7. Section 7, as you may recall in the previous podcast, involves offences on aircraft and offences occurring outside of Canada. Our present section 9 was enacted as section 8 in the 1953-54 Code amendments. The reversal occurred in the revisions under the 1985 Code when section 8 became section 9. To make matters even more confusing section 8 was present in our original Criminal Code of 1892 under the then sections 7 and 983. In 1906, the sections were combined and re-enacted as sections 9 to 12. The following revisions made a dizzying number of changes until the 1985 revisions re-enacted the then section 7 to the present section 8.

Confusing? As I have complained before in these podcasts, often the government has placed content over form by changing and adding sections to the Code without consideration for placement or sense.

On that historically obfuscating note, I wish one and all a very happy holidays and a happy new year. This podcast will return in January 2014 as we discuss the next section of the Criminal Code of Canada – section 10 when we revisit the common law offence of contempt of court and the availability of appellate remedies.

Episode 11Of The Ideablawg Podcast On The Criminal Code of Canada: On Section 8 And Section 9 Of The Criminal Code - Codification vs. Common Law, Is The Criminal Code Big Enough?

The “Passive- Aggressive” Nature Of Sections 6(2) and 7 – Committing Crimes Outside of Canada: Episode Ten of the Ideablawg Podcast on the Criminal Code of Canada – Text Version

Up to now, the sections in the Criminal Code have been fairly benign – either informational, as in the section 2 definitions, or procedural like the section 5 exemption for the Canadian Forces. Although sections 6(2) and 7 are also procedural in aspect, they are, what I would call, “passive-aggressive” sections.

What do I mean by “passive-aggressive?” These sections, instead of providing information to help us apply the Code, are in some sense giving us a “mini-Code” regarding offences committed outside of Canada. In one breath these sections take away a category of offences and in another they seem to create them.

Let’s look at the passive side of this equation or the section, which takes away offences – section 6(2). I will remind you, and invite you to read or listen to my previous podcast on section 6(1), which discusses why the heading for section 6 is Presumption Of Innocence. I argued, in my section 6(1) podcast, that the section does not actually focus on innocence but on punishment. I will now further suggest that this argument is supported by section 6(2), which does not read as a presumption of innocence section but as a prohibition. Section 6(2) reads as follows:

Subject to this Act or any other Act of Parliament, no person shall be convicted or discharged under section 730 of an offence committed outside of Canada.

So this section is prohibiting, in quite a terse manner, our criminal justice system from trying a person for an offence committed in another country. But it is not an absolute prohibition as it has those limiting words “subject to this Act or any other Act of Parliament,” meaning that other sections in the Code can supersede this prohibition as well as other sections in other federal Acts. Indeed, the first exception that comes to mind is the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, which is a federal piece of legislation that takes jurisdiction of any person who “commits outside of Canada genocide, a crime against humanity, or a war crime.” The second exception, which comes to mind, is found within the Code itself and is section 7.

Now, let’s look at this “aggressive” section 7, which seems to create offences. It is a lengthy section and although it is entitled Offences Committed On Aircraft, I would suggest it is a section covering much more than simple airspace and does make certain illegal activities committed outside of Canada an offence inside Canada. For the sake of brevity I will not be quoting this whole section. It covers eight and a half pages in my Martin’s Criminal Code, not including the newest amendment of the section on nuclear terrorism. Instead, I will make general comments on the section to give you a sense of its breadth, its weight, and just how broad an exception this section is to section 6(2).

Where section 6(2) is passive, section 7 is on the move, and where it is going is anywhere outside of Canada where an aircraft flies, where navigation is concerned, where ships go, where an oil platform may be drilling, where a space craft may blast off to, where a Canadian astronaut may be sleeping while in space, where nuclear material may be found, where cultural property may be transported, anywhere a public service employee may be committing offences, and where any Canadian commits a crime in accordance with various sections under the Code. The Criminal Code truly has global reach despite its seemingly passive section 6(2).

Of course, section 7 has been amended many times over the years to include all these various scenarios and is therefore a much newer section than section 6(2). Our world has become smaller through ease of travel and this section reflects that reality. But it also reflects a real desire of the federal government to keep jurisdiction over Canadian citizens and the illegal acts they may commit and the further desire of the government to keep tabs on individuals who may be plotting against Canada while outside of Canada. So why the misleading title for the section – Offences Committed On Aircraft? Well, there are many references in this section to aircraft, particularly relating to acts of sabotage or hijacking of a Canadian aircraft outside of Canada. Originally, before the “war on terror,” the section was mostly about aircraft, in response to the high profile hijacking cases of the late 1960s to early 1970s. Then, as the ways and means of committing offences outside of Canada became more varied and as our international obligations to combat these crimes became more pressing, the section was re-shaped and amended as it appears now.

The concept of Canada’s international obligations driving change to the section is seen in the references to these obligations within section 7, such as the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Thus, this section is not just about domestic Canadian criminal law but also about international criminal law. The interplay between Canadian criminal law and international criminal law is complicated. It raises issues of jurisdiction over the offence and over the person, which is what section 7 is all about – ensuring that Canada has the jurisdiction or authority to prosecute certain crimes found in the Criminal Code, which may relate to other federal acts, which have an international aspect to them, such as the Aeronautics Act or, as previously mentioned, the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

Although the section may give Canada the authority to prosecute certain crimes committed outside of Canada, in some cases there may a dual authority, where there are crimes against humanity, to try the case at the International Criminal Court or ICC at The Hague. The International Criminal Court was established pursuant to the Rome Statute, which was adopted by 120 countries in 1998, in response to the seemingly endless international atrocities, which sadly did not stop at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg but continued into Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Before 1998, these crimes against humanity were prosecuted internationally by an ad hoc court such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. As an aside, I had the honour of hearing Senator Romeo Dallaire speak of his role and Canada’s role in the Rwanda disaster. His speech was truly inspirational and a reminder that we do have true “Canadian Heroes.” As another aside, we should be equally proud of Canada’s role in the prosecution of those individuals responsible for the genocide as former Supreme Court of Canada Justice, Louise Arbour, was the Chief Prosecutor in the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda.

However, these specially constituted tribunals were not seen as enough of a response and hence the Rome Statute and the establishment of the ICC. The ICC has not been without controversy. The international community is not a homogeneous one and the perspectives run wide and deep. For instance, the recent prosecution of the President of Kenya, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, has been ongoing since 2010 and has still not advanced to the point of trial, partly due to the devastating terrorist mall attack in Kenya and partly through the efforts of Kenyatta himself. The trial is scheduled to commence February 5, 2014 but his prosecution has brought calls of bias against the ICC. A quick review of the active cases at the ICC reveals why: all 8 situations involve African countries. Thus the critics suggest there is an obvious country bias. The ICC has taken this suggestion so seriously that the court even has an online ICC Forum debating the issue.

Canada, according to a federal government website, contributed to the development of the ICC and is a signatory of the Rome Statute. Canada was the 18th country to sign the treaty and soon thereafter, in accordance with their obligations under the statute, Canada enacted in 2000 the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. On behalf of the WEOG or the Western European and others Group of States, Canadian Judge Philippe Kirsch, who was heavily involved in the creation and implementation of the court, sat on the ICC from 2003 to 2009. There is presently no Judge from Canada on the Court. There is however a Canadian presence on the prosecutorial team with James Stewart as the Deputy Prosecutor. I have been on the opposing side to James Stewart when he was an appellate Crown in the Ontario Crown Law office and found him to be a formidable yet honourable adversary.

There is of course more to section 7 than I have time to discuss in a podcast/blog but I hope I left you curious enough to explore some of these issues. The bottom-line is that far from the isolationist bent of section 6, the Criminal Code is truly reflective of Canada’s international interests and obligations. In this way, therefore, the Criminal Code truly becomes a mirror of our “plugged-in” society as the global perspective becomes more and more important to all of us. 

The Golden Thread Metaphor: Section Six And The Other Presumption Of Innocence Episode Nine of the Ideablawg Podcasts on the Criminal Code of Canada – Text Version!

The presumption of innocence – the concept that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty - is easily the most well known legal principle. As important as this principle is to our concept of justice, the presumption of innocence has become much more than a legal tool. It has become part of the fabric of our society. Today, every citizen is aware of the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. This principle has transcended the legal arena to become one of our society’s fundamental values. It is not only a value understood by all but it is part of our culture.

Indeed, as an example of the ubiquitous nature of the presumption of innocence, we can find the concept used as a title of a book, such as in Scott Turow’s novel, Presumed Innocent and the movie version with Harrison Ford. Or used as almost a character flaw as in one of my favourite legal literary heroes, Rumpole of the Bailey, written by John Mortimer Q.C. In those stories, Horace Rumple, the rumpled everyman barrister, finds personal solace in his belief in “the health-giving qualities of claret, of course, the presumption of innocence, and not having to clock into chambers in the morning.” In the classic play/movie 12 Angry Men, when Juror #8, played by Henry Fonda, reminds Juror #2, played by John Fiedler, that “the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t even have to open his mouth. That’s in the Constitution,” we nod our heads in agreement and relief. Although many of us could not say which section of the Charter (s. 11(d): “to be presumed innocent until proven guilty”) encapsulates this concept, we all take comfort in knowing it is there.

But there is another place where the presumption of innocence is recorded in Canadian law and that is section 6 of the Criminal Code, which is entitled “presumption of innocence,” the first part of which reads as follows:

Where an enactment creates an offence and authorizes a punishment to be imposed in respect of that offence,

(a) a person shall be deemed not to be guilty of the offence until he is convicted or discharged under section 730 of the offence; and

(b) a person who is convicted or discharged under section 730 of the offence is not liable to any punishment in respect thereof other than the punishment prescribed by this Act or by the enactment that creates the offence.

Now, that’s not really the “presumption of innocence” we have come to expect, is it? When you read this section it just does not seem to have that visceral punch I talked about earlier when reacting to the lines spoken in 12 Angry Men. It also does not seem to be conveying the deep, and almost personal societal, values underlying this fundamental premise.

First, let’s look at the wording. Unlike the Charter equivalent, there is nothing in section 6 about a “presumption” only a “deeming.” So the very word, we hang on when discussing innocence, the “presumption,” which gives the concept such solemnity, is gone. Second, there is nothing in the section about “innocence” although the title suggests it. However, as we know from my previous podcasts, in the Criminal Code the headings are there for convenience only and do not form part of the section itself. Instead, I would suggest, the section seems to be contrary to the presumption of innocence as it focuses instead on the concept of guilt and punishment. The section describes the circumstances in which the court can finally impose punishment. Now to be sure the court needs to hold off until conviction, but as soon as that pre-condition is fulfilled the sanctioning regime kicks in and punishment is not only available but also inevitable. Section 6(1)(b) continues this punishment theme by ensuring that the punishment can only be that as prescribed or authorized by law but it adds nothing to our concept of the presumption of innocence. So this section is not really about the fundamental premise of our criminal justice system, the golden thread of criminal law, but about when punishment can, and will, be meted out.

To understand why this section reads as it does, a little legislative history is in order. The section first arose in 1886 legislation on punishment entitled An Act Respecting Punishment, Pardons, and the Commutation of Sentence, and was not only subsumed into the first Criminal Code but was placed in the latter part of the Code where the punishment sections resided. The purpose of the section was not therefore to trumpet the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence but to reinforce the applicability of punishment at the time of a finding of guilt. This concept of punishment only upon conviction was not only consistent with English criminal law but was consistent with chapter 39 of the Magna Carta which stated that:

No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

In the original Latin phrase of this article “nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae,” the Magna Carta protects the accused from punishment without judgment of his equals and in accordance with “the law of the land.” So this idea that an accused is guilty only when he is found guilty, remained under the general punishment section of the Code until 1955, when it was moved to the front part of the Code, namely to section 5(1), but was still viewed as a punishment section as it was then entitled Punishment Only After Conviction. However the wording of the 1955 section does resemble the wording we have today under section 6. It is not until the 1985 revision of the Code, when the section was repealed and reinvigorated as section 6 that it becomes the more venerable presumption of innocence. Of course this reconstitution (forgive my pun) came after the 1982 enactment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Understanding this legislative history does give us a better sense of how it came into the Code but why it was renamed the presumption of innocence is an unanswered question requiring deeper investigation than an Internet search. Certainly, looking at case law, this section is rarely invoked as authority for the principle of the presumption of innocence. A quick survey of cases reveals there are only a few such cases (these cases can be found here, here, here, and here) where section 6 was relied upon as propounding the concept but always invoked with the constitutionalized version found under s. 11(d) of the Charter.

Although I cannot explain why this presumption section is so named, I would like to take a few moments to consider where the concept of the presumption of innocence arose in the first place. In my earlier posting on the issue, I suggested, through the academic writings of George Fletcher that the concept actually migrated to criminal law from the English civil law. I do not want to return to that discussion, instead I want to take us to the moment when the presumption of innocence becomes imbued with the gravitas it now enjoys – the particular moment when the presumption of innocence transformed into the fundamental principle it is today. I have already alluded to that moment earlier in this podcast when I described the presumption as the “golden thread of criminal law.” In first year law school there a few seminal or landmark English cases we discuss and end up knowing virtually by heart. One of them is the case where this “golden thread” metaphor is first used, the 1935 English House of Lords case of Woolmington v. DPP.  The facts of the Woolmington case do not concern us here but the decision, what is written by the then Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, Viscount Sankey, does.

In order to set the stage for this momentous decision, I need to give a quick legal backgrounder on Lord Sankey and the great impact he had on Canadian law. After the Supreme Court of Canada in 1925 found women were not “persons” under the British North America Act and therefore ineligible to sit in the Senate, the case, known as the Persons case, was appealed to what was then the highest level of appeal, the British Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Civil appeals to the Privy Council were abolished in 1949, while criminal appeals ended in 1933. Lord Sankey, as a member of the Privy Council, wrote the appeal decision in the Persons Case or Edwards v. Canada (Attorney-General). In the case, reversing the Supreme Court of Canada decision and finding women were indeed “persons,” Lord Sankey commented on the argument that historically women were disbarred from public office. Despite this historical fact, Lord Sankey concluded that “the exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours” and that “customs are apt to develop into traditions which are stronger than law and remain unchallenged long after the reason for them has disappeared.” In the Persons Case there was no reason why women could not discharge the parliamentary duty of office. In terms of the efficacy of the actual British North America Act, which today we call the Constitution Act, 1867, Lord Sankey, famously remarked that the Act “planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits.” This metaphor of the Constitution as a living tree has taken root since the 1930 Persons Case and has become a guiding doctrine in our constitutional jurisprudence.

Needless, to say Lord Sankey has a way with words and the Woolmington case was no exception. On the issue of presumption of innocence, Lord Sankey surveyed the textbooks on the issue and was perplexed to find a suggestion that the presumption was one of guilt and the burden was on the accused to prove otherwise. After running through more cases, Lord Sankey described the fundamental importance of the presumption as:

Through-out the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the
defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception.

Lord Sankey then connects the presumption of innocence with the burden of proof, which requires the Crown to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This connection is explored in my previous blog on the issue. So, it was Lord Sankey who gave use this strong visualization of the presumption of innocence and turned the principle into something much more.

How Lord Sankey came to this golden thread metaphor is puzzling. I suggest that this metaphor must have come from the Greek myth of Ariadne and Theseus. Ariadne gave Theseus a golden thread to help him escape the Minoan Labyrinth after he killed the Minotaur. Thus, the presumption of innocence, as the golden thread of Ariadne, leads the accused out of the maze-like machinations of the criminal law.

This thread theme is reinforced by a further metaphor, which I also referred to earlier in my podcast; that the presumption of innocence is part of the “fabric” of our society. Indeed, I found a 1965 case, R v Dixon, from the then District Court of Ontario, written by Mr. Justice Robinson wherein he describes the presumption as the “golden thread” that “runs through the warp and woof and is thus firmly imbedded in the whole fabric of the administration of English and Canadian criminal justice.” When I first read this passage, not unlike a Wiki page, I thought someone added the phrase “warp and woof” for a joke. But, like a good researcher, I looked up “warp and woof” and found the following definition:

The essential foundation or base of any structure or organization; from weaving, in which the warp — the threads that run lengthwise — and the woof — the threads that run across — make up the fabric: “The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are the warp and woof of the American nation.” This expression, used figuratively since the second half of the 1500s, alludes to the threads that run lengthwise ( warp ) and crosswise ( woof ) in a woven fabric.

So this thread metaphor is taken in a different direction but is also a good candidate for explaining Lord Sankey’s “golden thread” turn of phrase. By the way, I did take my research a little further to find other cases that have used this archaic phrase. I found only a few cases, some which were actually about fabric making but there was a use of this metaphor in two Supreme Court of Canada constitutional Division of Powers cases; Reference as to the Validity of Section 6 of the Farm Security Act, 1944 of Saskatchewan and the 2009 Consolidated Fastfrate Inc. v. Western Canada Council of Teamsters. Notably, in the 2009 case, Mr. Justice Binnie used the phrase in a delicious quote invoking the world of the 1860s:

The current Canadian economy would be unrecognizable to the statesmen of 1867 and, to borrow an analogy from Thomas Jefferson, one would not expect a grown man to wear a coat that fitted him as a child.  The coat is of the same design, but the sleeves are longer and the chest is broader and the warp and woof of the fabric is more elaborate and complex.  Adopting a purposive approach to constitutional interpretation, as we must, what is important is not how transportation was viewed in 1867 but rather to match in our own era the level of regulation (federal, provincial or territorial) appropriate to the nature and scope of the undertaking.  Now, as in 1867, when a transportation undertaking connects or extends “beyond the Limits of the Province” its regulation is assigned by the Constitution Act, 1867 to the federal level of authority.

In 1859, Charles Dickens also used a golden thread metaphor in A Tale Of Two Cities, to suggest a strong bond of familial love created by the indomitable Lucie. Although, there is a strong affiliation between the criminal law and the presumption, I still prefer the Greek myth connection. I should recommend here my previous blog on Charles Dickens and the law called Charles Dickens Is On The Side Of Justice wherein I discuss some of the more legally minded passages of Dickens’s novels. 

One final aside on this golden thread metaphor brings us to American literature and Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter, where Hester is required to sew a letter “A” onto her clothing as her punishment as an adulterer. As time wears on, Hester proudly marks her shame with an “A” made of golden thread. For Hester, the golden quality of the thread reflects the shame of the community who branded her with their cruelty.

In some way the golden thread of the presumption of innocence protects us from a similar fate – a society devoid of compassion - or as Chief Justice Dickson, as he then was, reminded us in the 1986 Supreme Court of Canada Oakes case, the presumption of innocence "confirms our faith in humankind; it reflects our belief that individuals are decent and law‑abiding members of the community until proven otherwise." To me, his words are indeed golden.

 

 

Section 5 – The Criminal Code and The Canadian Forces: Episode 8 of the Ideablawg Podcasts on the Criminal Code of Canada

The following is the text version of Episode Eight of the Ideablawg Podcasts. The podcast can be found at the end of the text.

In this episode, we are still in Part I, the General part of the Criminal Code. As the title of this Part suggests, many of the sections under this Part are broad statements applying to the Code as a whole – like the previous section 4, which included some general terms and procedures. Section 5 also makes a sweeping statement but about the military. Section 5 reads as follows:

Nothing in this Act affects any law relating to the government of the Canadian Forces.

Well, that sounds very straight forward – The Criminal Code does not affect martial or military law. Or, in other words military laws take precedent over the Criminal Code. Now, that is quite a statement – an exemption from the Criminal Code for the military? Is that what this section is really doing?

Well, not exactly. Certainly members of Canadian Forces are not exempt from the Criminal Code but they are exempt from the procedures found under the Criminal Code if the military decides to try a member for a Criminal Code offence before a military tribunal. Thus, in accordance with Section 130 of the National Defence Act any Criminal Code offence committed by a member of the Canadian Armed Forces or any person accompanying the Canadian Forces has also committed an offence under the National Defence Act (hereinafter NDA) and the Code of Service Discipline, found under Part III of the NDA applies.

These two sections – s. 5 in the Criminal Code and s. 130 in the NDA – create a separate judicial scheme for the armed forces. This concept is not new and has been a cornerstone of our military disciplinary regime from the conception of the armed forces. The Parliamentarian right to legislate on military matters was given under the Constitution Act, 1867 through s. 91(7). It has also been argued that the legitimacy of this federally created military judicial system is recognized by s. 11(f) the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which exempts military offences, even if punishable by five years imprisonment or more, from the right to a jury trial.

The purpose of such a separate regime is ostensibly to enforce military discipline. However, the courts have interpreted that purpose generously. For instance, in the 1992 Supreme Court of Canada Genereux case, the court considered the application of s. 11 of the Charter to military trials involving Criminal Code offences. The majority of the court speaking through the decision of Chief Justice Lamer, reiterated that s. 11 of the Charter did apply to military courts or, as in the Genereux case, the proceedings of the General Courts Martial. The Chief Justice explained:

Although the Code of Service Discipline is primarily concerned with maintaining discipline and integrity in the Canadian Armed Forces, it does not serve merely to regulate conduct that undermines such discipline and integrity.  The Code serves a public function as well by punishing specific conduct which threatens public order and welfare. Many of the offences with which an accused may be charged under the Code of Service Discipline, which is comprised of Parts IV to IX of the National Defence Act, relate to matters which are of a public nature.  For example, any act or omission that is punishable under the Criminal Code or any other Act of Parliament is also an offence under the Code of Service Discipline.  Service tribunals thus serve the purpose of the ordinary criminal courts, that is, punishing wrongful conduct, in circumstances where the offence is committed by a member of the military or other person subject to the Code of Service Discipline.”

However, we must remember that it is the choice of the military or, in some cases, the federal government, whether or not to prosecute a member under the Code of Service Discipline. For example, the infamous case of Col. Russell Williams was heard in the civilian court. So too was the spying case of sub-lieutenant Jeffrey Delisle (I have written previous blogs and this case here and here), although apparently the military was not pleased with the government’s decision to try him in the civilian court.

This military judicial regime is actually a two-tiered system. Most discipline matters are dealt with under the summary trial procedure at the unit level where the maximum punishment is thirty days incarceration.  The more serious and formal process is a court martial with a “legally qualified military judge” presiding. In this procedure the accused are entitled to counsel and a member of the Judge Advocate General prosecutes the case. A court martial may be by way of a General Courts Martial, which consists of a judge and a panel of five members of the Armed Forces, or a Standing Courts Martial, which is a military judge sitting alone. Both Courts can impose a sentence of life imprisonment.

Although this military system has been in use for years and has seemingly been upheld by SCC decisions, there are significant pressures for reform. In a recent paper, presented by Professor Michel William Drapeau, a retired Colonel who once was the Director of the National Defence Headquarters Secretariat and is now a law professor at the University of Ottawa, for The Global Seminar for Military Reform held at the Yale Law School on October 18-19, 2013, Professor Drapeau argues strongly in favour of reform of the military judicial system based on the worldwide trend to reduce military jurisdiction and reintroduce civilian jurisdiction, particularly where criminal offences are involved.

In Drapeau’s view, reform is needed so our military conforms to accepted human rights practices and based upon previous calls for reform from within Canada through the 1998 Royal Commission into the repugnant actions of some members of the armed forces in Somalia and through the 2003 Lamer Report, written as a five year review of the NDA after legislative changes were implemented as a result of the 1998 Commission. In this excellent paper, Drapeau outlines a number of reform recommendations, which, if accepted by the government, would ensure that military justice is not only on par with our civilian criminal justice system but consistent with our global role as a model of a free and democratic society. I also recommend another paper presented at this seminar written by the Honourable Gilles Letourneau, a retired judge of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal but also the Commissioner for the 1998 Somalia Inquiry mentioned earlier, entitled Two Fundamental Shortcomings of the Canadian Military Justice System.

I leave this topic reluctantly as quite frankly it is so complex and interesting I would like to delve deeper into the issues I have briefly raised. I encourage everyone to go out and learn more on how the military judicial system operates. In particular, there are a number of recent Charter cases in which it has been argued that various sections of the NDA are unconstitutional. Although, the applications have been dismissed, they were decided at the court martial level and I believe we will be seeing more such challenges in the future and some on appeal.

Of course, this podcast will be published the day before November 11, Remembrance Day, and whatever criticisms there may be of the military judicial system, I think we can all agree that our veterans and current members of the Armed Forces should be lauded and remembered for their courage and bravery. On that note, I would like to conclude this podcast with a poetry reading. Every November 11, my family and I mark Remembrance Day with readings from war poets such as Wilfred Owen from WW I (I recommend Dulce Et Decorum Est) and Keith Douglas from World War II (I recommend How To Kill). I have written a previous blog on war poetry, which can be found here called “Lest We Forget,” which includes these poems and a poem by F. R. Scott, a civil liberties lawyer and a previous Dean of McGill Law School. I have written a blog posting called Poetic Justice wherein I discuss the role of poetry in law and discuss Scott’s poetic legacy. (As an aside, Norman Bethune was in love with Marian Scott, F.R. Scott’s wife.)

I could, of course, end this podcast with the most famous Canadian war poem, In Flanders Field, by John McCrae, but instead I will read another of McCrae’s poems, not as well known but just as meaningful, entitled Disarmament:

One spake amid the nations, "Let us cease

From darkening with strife the fair World's light,

We who are great in war be great in peace.

No longer let us plead the cause by might."

 

But from a million British graves took birth

A silent voice -- the million spake as one --

"If ye have righted all the wrongs of earth

Lay by the sword! Its work and ours is done."

 

 

Episode 8: Section 5 and Military Law Ideablawg Podcast

Section 3.1 and the Effect of Judicial Acts: Episode Four Ideablawg Podcast on the Criminal Code of Canada

The following is the text version of Episode Four of the Ideablawg Podcasts on the Criminal Code of Canada. At the bottom of the text is the actual podcast. However, I do encourage you to read the text as well and follow the hyperlinks to the cases and other websites to which I refer. Enjoy!

Welcome to Episode Four of the Ideablawg Podcasts on the Criminal Code of Canada. My name is Lisa Silver and today we are discussing section 3.1 of the Code, which is entitled “Effect of Judicial Acts.” When I started researching this seemingly innocuous procedure section I uncovered some extremely interesting connections that I am really excited to share with you. So let’s dig deep into section 3.1!

First, I want to set the stage, so to speak, on this section and there are many ways to do this. As I already said, this section is a procedure section. What does that mean? A procedure section involves the process in criminal law as opposed to a substantive law section, which sets out the essential elements of criminal offences or the substance of criminal law.  Criminal procedure is just a set of rules on how that substantive law is enforced and implemented through the criminal justice system. I will reserve a fuller explanation for my blog “basics of Canadian criminal law” series – coming soon.  So, section 3.1 involves the rules of criminal process.

The placement of s. 3.1 is also of importance. Last podcast, when I introduced s. 3.1 as my next podcast, I did so by identifying the section with its place in the Code. I said that s. 3.1 was the first section to come under Part I of the Code, known as the “General” Part. Oddly enough, when I looked at my annotated Criminal Code, being Martin’s Annual Criminal Code, section 3.1 is not placed under Part 1 General Part but is found under the previous interpretation segment discussed in the last three previous podcasts! To make sure I was not mistaken in my podcast placement, I checked the actual statute as found on both the Department of Justice website and canlii (Canadian Legal Information Institute) website and found that s. 3.1 is found under the General Part as I indicated.

So is s. 3.1 an interpretation section or is it a General Part section? With all due respect to my favourite annotated Code, I submit section 3.1 properly comes under the General Part as a matter of process as opposed to a matter of interpretation. Also, Martin’s rival, Tremeer’s Criminal Code, which my husband favours, places section 3.1 as the statute does, under the General Part I. Now that would make a good future blog discussion on the various Criminal Codes, both annotated and not, and their history. Now back to this podcast.

You may wonder how there can be such a discrepancy. I can only speculate but as this section is a fairly recent amendment to the Code, from 2002, the publishers of Martin’s, Canada Law Book, simply placed it after section 3 as opposed to separating the two sections by placing them under different segments. Logically s. 3.1 should come after section 3 but really when the government amends the Code there is often no rhyme or reason to the numbering, as we will see. I mean, where else could they have put this section? I’ll have to think about that.

So we have physically placed the section and now I will read it to you:

Unless otherwise provided or ordered, anything done by a court, justice or judge is effective from the moment it is done, whether or not it is reduced to writing.

What exactly is this section doing? It is in essence creating a presumption. A presumption, which I will later argue is contrary to the common law. This section is telling us that when a court or a specific judicial officer does something – any action such as an order – that act is effective immediately, no matter how it is communicated. So, the presumption is for immediacy. The presumption is however rebuttable, meaning that the court or judge when he does the act can say the act does not take effect immediately. However, if the court or judge says nothing about the time of effectiveness, the presumption is for immediacy.

Okay. That makes sense. When someone does something they mean it to be done asap unless they indicate otherwise – brings to mind Yul Brynner as Ramses II in the Ten Commandments when he says “so let it be written, so let it be done.” Of course, this is as opposed to Yul as the King of Siam in the King and I where he adds onto all of his orders “etc., etc., etc.”

It makes sense to be sure but why did the government add this and why did they only add this in 2002?  In order to find out why they added this section, we turn to the Parliamentary records. This section was part of an omnibus Bill C-15 also known as the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2001, brought in by the then Liberal Government and sponsored by the then Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, the Honourable Anne McLellan. It is amusing and ironic to read the debate on this bill as the opposition, namely the then Canadian Alliance through Vic Toews as the Justice critic, bash the bill because of its omnibus nature. Agreed the bill is an odd mix of Criminal Code amendments, everything from procedural changes such as 3.1 to “animal cruelty, child pornography, and firearms,” but this practice of kitchen-sink amending appears to be pro forma today.

In McLellan’s speech to kick-start the debate on the second reading of the Bill, she stated:

Let me turn briefly to the area of criminal procedure reform. The Department of Justice has been working closely with the provinces and territories on criminal procedure reform for some years. This work is now in its third phase. The objectives of phase three are to simplify trial procedure, modernize the criminal justice system and enhance its efficiency through the increased use of technology, better protect victims and witnesses in criminal trials, and provide speedy trials in accordance with charter requirements. We are trying to bring criminal procedure into the 21st century. This phase reflects our efforts to modernize our procedure without in any way reducing the measure of justice provided by the system. As I said at the outset, the provinces and territories support these reforms. As they are responsible for the administration of justice, I believe that we should do our best to give them the tools they need to ensure the efficient and effective operation of the criminal justice system.

It appears then the amendment was for efficiency and modernization, particularly as a result of the increased use of technology. This is consistent with the legislative history of the amendments, which gives the “key thrust” of the bill is to provide for the use of electronic documents. In terms of section 3.1, the document states:

As a general matter, clause 2 of the bill ensures the legality and immediate effectiveness of judicial acts from the moment they are done, whether or not they are reduced to writing.  This provision ensures the validity of judicial acts made in a number of circumstances where hard-copy documentary proof of the act is not immediately generated.   Such situations could include judicial decisions in the form of orders or warrants which may be issued electronically or orally by telephone or some other form of audio or audio-visual communications link.

There may be another reason for this change as well. Such a rule, albeit worded differently, is found in some provincial rules of court. Each court level has rules to assist them in the nuts and bolts of the organization and maintenance of the courts as well as procedure. Criminal procedure, as a result of s. 91(27) the Constitution Act, 1867, is within the power of Parliament, while s. 92(14) gives the provinces the power to administer justice in the province through rules on civil procedure and the “constitution, maintenance, and organization” of the civil and criminal courts. In terms of civil procedure each provinces rules of court apply. There are also criminal rules, which tend to the organizational side, leaving the procedure, as required by the Constitution Act, with the feds.

Just looking at the Alberta Rules of Court, which were completely overhauled in 2010, rule 9.6 states that the effective date of “every judgment and every order” is on the “date of pronouncement” unless the court orders otherwise. It is similar to section 3.1 yet different. The civil rule is restricted to judgments and orders and to “pronouncements.” According to various dictionaries, “pronouncement” means a formal declaration, usually a judgment. Of course, the Criminal Code section applies to any act of the court and is therefore much broader.

Now we understand why the government decided to put this section into the Code but what is the effect of this effect of judicial acts? For that we are going to look at some case law and the concept of functus. The word functus is from the Latin word fungor, which means to execute or administer or to discharge. When used in its legal sense, it refers to the phrase functus officio, when a judge has exhausted his or her authority over the matter and can no longer alter his or her decision. It typically applies to final decisions of the court. A judge would be functus officio when he or she acquits an accused of a criminal offence. That finding is final, in the sense, that judge no longer has any power over the accused and the case. In other words, the judge cannot re-open the case or amend a final decision unless there has been an administrative “slip” in the decision or “error in expressing the manifest intention of the court.” Instead, there are appellate remedies but the trial judge is now functus and out of the game.

The concept or doctrine of functus officio originally comes from English common law on the premise that we need some finality in court in order for parties to an action to have finality as well. However, this common law rule applied to the final formal judgment and did not apply to any and all acts done by the judge. In fact the common law rule made allowances for informal reasons that may be changed. That is still the law in England, where there is “within the powers of a judge to reconsider his or her decision at any time before it is entered and perfected.” Section 3.1 has now changed the common law. This was recognized in 2004 in the Alberta Queen’s Bench decision in R. v. Harris.

Next podcast, we will be dealing with section 4, which can be viewed as an omnibus section of unrelated statements regarding interpretation of the application of criminal law. It does sound as if this section should be in that interpretation segment but we will see that this section goes further than interpretation to position all users of the Criminal Code on common ground. In this way, this section truly deals with generalities and thus properly in the General Part of the Code.

 

Episode Four Ideablawg Podcast on Section 3.1 and the effect of Judicial Acts

Part One of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decisions In The Sniffer Dog Cases: Don’t Throw Out The Principle With The Bath Water!

Question: When is a legal principle clarified by unanimous court but when the principle must subsequently be applied, unanimity goes out the window? Answer: When the Supreme Court of Canada delivers a much anticipated and needed decision on an issue, which, depending on the outcome, may change the face of police investigatory practice. That is the case, of course, in the two sniffer dog decisions in Chehil and MacKenzie, which were supposed to clarify the standard of “reasonable suspicion.” However, instead of the much-needed direction from the Court, the Supreme Court of Canada leaves us with a ruling that fails to clarify. As we all know, legal principles do not live in a vacuum and if they cannot be applied consistently and with some prediction, then the principle becomes a tool of the law and not the rule of law.

Still, the cases do tell us something, about which I have consistently written: that a seemingly objective standard is a fallacy as it is applied through the subjective sensibilities of the assessor, the judge, and in the context of facts, which themselves are founded on a subjective view of the receiver. Chehil and MacKenzie are cases in point: Chehil sets out the principle, to which everyone on the Court agrees, while MacKenzie applies it through the judicial lens. Unfortunately, the judicial lens is of varying strengths and degrees: not everyone on the Court sees matters the same way. The decision is therefore a fractious one. If our Supreme Court of Canada cannot agree then how can the majority, written by Justice Moldaver as I predicted, find the trial judge, who heard the evidence, is wrong. Can one even be wrong when applying an objective reasonable person standard? Are there two reasonable people? Do we even know how a reasonable person thinks? Ah, there’s the rub and there is the tautology: objective standards are only as good as the facts behind them.

If the above seems like a rant, well I suppose it is: the decisions, when read together are puzzling. Moldaver’s MacKenzie decision is even more so when read against the trial judge’s reasons. Unfortunately, one cannot get beyond the admonition of the trial judge when he found it possible “that the observations of the accused claimed to have been noticed by Cst. Sperle were enhanced after the drugs were located.” This kind of after the fact decision-making seems to permeate the SCC decision too but understandably so as in fact there were drugs found and the accused was a drug courier. But what we must all keep in mind is the purpose of the Charter is not to exonerate criminals but to provide oversight when the awesome powers of the state are used,  in whatever circumstances. Just as innocent people may come under scrutiny in a criminal investigation, as pointed out by Madame Justice Karakatsanis in Chehil, so too seemingly guilty people will benefit from inappropriate state intrusion. This is what safeguards our fundamental principles in a free and democratic society.

It is in this context that we must review and analyze these cases. In part two of my case comment, I will do just that.

 

 

Let’s Talk About the Canadian Criminal Code: Episode Two Section 2 (and s. 2.1) - Definitions

Welcome to episode two of the Ideablawg Podcast entitled: Let’s Talk About the Canadian Criminal Code.

Last week we discussed the short but complete section 1 “naming section.” This week we will talk about its polar opposite: the hefty yet incomplete section 2.

As discussed in the last podcast, there is a method to the madness of writing legislation. Indeed the framework or structure of a statute is not whimsical but follows certain prescribed formats. These formats may differ slightly from statute to statute and from levels of government as we learned when we talked about preambles to an act as opposed to a purpose section found within a statute. But in essentials, statutes tend to look very similar.

One of these similarities is found in section 2 of the Criminal Code – found under the interpretation segment of the Code, entitled “definitions.” These words and phrases are definitions of key terms used within the Criminal Code.

Now I called this section hefty yet incomplete. Hefty, because this section 2, which is not broken down into subsections as other sections of the Code are, provides us with a long alphabetical list of words in which some terms are defined quite lengthily. In fact, there are 73 words listed under section 2 from “Act” to “Writing.” Of the 73, 2 are repealed: the term “feeble-minded person” was repealed in 1991 and “magistrate” in 1985 as these terms are no longer used in the Criminal Code. Of course, Canada no longer has any “magistrates” as they are now known as “provincial court judges.”

The term “feeble-minded person,” however, comes from the old rape provisions in the Criminal Code, namely s.148, and came into force through the 1922 Code amendments.   It is difficult to read this old section without cringing:

s. 148. Every male person who, under circumstances that do not amount to rape, has sexual intercourse with a female person

(a) who is not his wife, and

(b) who is and who he knows or has good reason to believe is feeble-minded, insane, or is an idiot or imbecile,

is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years.

The term also applied when considering the old insanity defence under the now amended (as of 1991 there is no insanity defence but an offender may be found NCR or “not criminally responsible” as a result of a mental disorder) s.16 of the Criminal Code. Unlike the rape provisions, this term when used in the context of insanity, applied equally to men and women. Interestingly, in the 1984 Supreme Court of Canada decision, rendered a year before the term was repealed, Justice Dickson, as he then was, in the Ogg-Moss case, agreed that the term was “somewhat disturbing to modern sensibilities” but was really equivalent to saying “mentally retarded” or “developmentally handicapped.” Of course, both of those terms today are deemed completely inappropriate as well. The term “mental disability” is now the preferred adjective. There is still a sexual offence related to this: sexual exploitation of person with mental or physical disability under s.153.1 and it applies to both men and women, married or not.

Amazing that the term, “feeble-minded person,” was only repealed in 1985.

I also call out this so-called definition section as being incomplete. Incomplete, because not all words used in the Code are defined. This has a twofold significance: as not every word which we would like to be defined is defined and not every word which is defined is found under this section.

Let's tackle the first thought: not every word we would like to be defined is defined in the Criminal Code. As we ramble through the Code, we will be faced with some crimes for which some essential elements of the prohibited act are not defined for us. At this point our only recourse is to go to the case law. Case law produced, by judges, interpret statutes together with principles found in the common law and come up with legal interpretations or definitions of the words used.   If there is no case law on the word or phrase then a lawyer is forced to be creative and come up with a definition, which they hope the trial judge will accept. To be frank, the best starting point to do this is the dictionary. How is this word defined in Webster or Oxford? Then, how is it defined in case law? In other jurisdictions? And so on. To me this is the fun part of being a lawyer – when you can be part of the creation of the law.

An example would be the phrase “planned and deliberate” under s.231(2) of the Code, which is the section outlining when murder is deemed first-degree. The term is only important for sentencing classification and comes into play only after the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the intention required for murder as found under s.229. This phrase is not defined in the Code but is neatly defined in case law to mean the follows: planned - a scheme or design previously formed, and deliberate - considered and not impulsive.

Now the second thought: not every defined word is found under this section, tells us that there are other places in the Code where words are defined. For instance, there are definitions, as referred earlier, at the beginning of some Parts of the Code such as Part VI Invasion of Privacy.

There are also definitions found within sections of the Code such as the term “crime comic” under s.163(7).

Then there are the hidden gems such as the term “negligence,” an extremely important term as it signifies the level of intention required to commit an offence and is used for one of the most serious offences in the Code s.222(5)(b) manslaughter. Yet, “negligence” is defined only by reference to a title of a section. In section 436, entitled Arson By Negligence, a fairly recent offence in the Code from 1990, the actual section setting out the crime does not use the word “negligence” but instead defines it as follows:

“Every person who owns, in whole or in part, or controls property is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years where, as a result of a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would use to prevent or control the spread of fires or to prevent explosions, that person is a cause of a fire or explosion in that property that causes bodily harm to another person or damage to property.”

“As a result of a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would use” is the definition, found in case law, of criminal negligence. I leave it to you to decide if this is indeed a “hidden gem” or merely another example of the complexities of our Criminal Code.

So, in the end, section 2 is not only a list of some definitions but is also a list of what is not defined in the Criminal Code.

 But of course it is not that simple.

For example, let’s look at a recent definition added to section 2 – “justice system participant.” The definition is a list of very specific categories of people who come under this term, such as under

(a) “a member of the Senate, of the House of Commons, of a legislative assembly or of a municipal council.”

Caution is required, however, as the definition is also very broad: under (b) it is also

“a person who plays a role in the administration of criminal justice.”

The definition does go on to list examples, but clearly this definition is not exhaustive. Imagine if we went to the dictionary for a definition of a word and it said etc, etc, etc.. Not overly helpful is it – so again we are down to case law and a possible argument in court in order to define the definitions and give them boundaries.

Before I close, I would like to discuss s. 2.1, which is a new section added in 2009. This section also provides us with definitions; in fact it is entitled “further definitions – firearms.” Okay, so instead of amending section 2, the government simply added a section 2.1 with firearm specific definitions.

Well, no not really.

Section 2.1 merely points us to the place where the listed terms are actually defined. The section lists words such as “ammunition” and “replica firearm” and tells us that those listed words have the same meaning as in s. 84(1). If we go to s. 84(1), we see a section defining a number of terms, including the ones listed under s. 2.1. This s. 84(1) is in fact the definition section for Part III of the Code on Firearms and Other Weapons. As mentioned earlier a Part may start with definitions of words found within the particular Part. Certainly, there are no definitions in the Code, which contradict, meaning there are no definitions of a term for one Part of the Code and then a different definition for the exact same term in another Part. So why did the government add this s. 2.1? For clarification? For extra emphasis? Why?

Well, in my view, Section 2.1 instead of clarifying actually does the reverse as it leaves the impression that if the word is only defined under a particular Part, that does not necessarily mean that word, if found elsewhere, has the same meaning.

And to make us even more confused, there is a federal statute with definitions, which apply to all federal legislation, as long as it is consistent with that legislation, called the Interpretation Act.

Now that’s confusion for you, that’s the Criminal Code for you, and that is the podcast for this week.

Next week we will discuss this Interpretation Act a bit more when we look at the last of the interpretation sections in the Code: section 3

Please note: This is the text of the Episode Two of my podcast. I do not have the audio file attached but will be sending out the actual podcast in a separate file.

THOUGHTS ON THE INTERSECTION OF LAW AND ART: LEGAL ARCHITECTURE

I recently read a compilation of essays, in a work from an outstanding publishing house Sternberg Press, Thousand Eyes: Media Technology, Law and Aesthetics, on the connection between contemporary art and law, particularly courts of law, where the art theory concept of “representation” and the physical and legal attributes of law intersect through the courtroom. From that connection the comparative analyses are many and varied: the courtroom as theatre, evidence as iconoclastic images, and the changing role of new media. But what struck me was the concept of the law court as a bounded space, which reinforces the separateness of the law world from the real world.

In his essay In Between: Power and Procedure Where the Court meets the Public Sphere, Richard Mohr observes the fixity of our courts within a self-constructed bounded space and the resultant tension between those inside, the legal players, and those outside, the public. He argues this border between the two is not just physical but conceptual as well. Not only does the courtroom have a fixed address with an enclosed space but the rules or procedures too emphasis closure through the rules of evidence, which permit only certain forms of approved facts into its space. This closing off of the law not only impacts public access but also public perception.

Other essays in the collection go further and suggest the advent of new media and the relaxation of media in the courtroom has expanded the courtroom walls and changed the static concept of law. However, one of the editors, Judy Radul for whom the essays were published to celebrate her World Rehearsal Court exhibition, in her essay, Video Chamber, argues to the contrary: in her view, the ability of the courts to be connected elsewhere through, for example, CCTV, makes the court an even more enclosed space “monolithic and unmovable” as the court hunkers down, forever fixed in place, as the images come to it.

The legal architecture then becomes an impactful aspect of the law, particularly in light of the access to justice issues Canada has been recently facing. It may also impact how the Supreme Court of Canada view evidentiary rules: should they unbind the courtroom or provide further enclosure?

The connections between art and law may, at first glance, appear superficial: yes, the lawyers are like actors in a Shakespearean play, albeit their backs are usually to the audience. However, when viewed through the lens of art theory, the representational force of the law cannot be doubted. This is something to think about when arguing in the bounded space of the law.

 

 

 

 

Read More