Supreme Court of Canada Finds That Some Texts Are Considered Private

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

We have previously blogged about the topic of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages. The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) ruled last week that Canadians can expect the text messages that they send to remain private even after they reach their destination (i.e. depending on the circumstances, there may be a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages even after they have been sent to another person).

In a 5-2 ruling, the SCC in R. v. Marakah set aside the firearms convictions of a man whose incriminating text messages were found on the phone of an alleged accomplice by Toronto police.

WHAT HAPPENED?

An Ontario man, Nour Marakah, sent text messages regarding illegal transactions in firearms to his accomplice, Andrew Winchester. The police obtained and executed warrants for both Marakah’s and Winchester’s homes. While conducting the search, the police found Marakah’s Blackberry and Winchester’s iPhone and proceeded to search both devices, which revealed the incriminating text messages. These messages were then used as evidence to charge Marakah.

At trial, Marakah argued that the messages should not be admitted as evidence against him because they were obtained in violation of his rights against unreasonable search or seizure under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”).

The Ontario application judge found that the warrant for Marakah’s home had been invalid and that the text messages recovered from his own Blackberry could not be used against him. However, the court admitted the text messages from Winchester’s iPhone as evidence. Based on these messages, Marakah was convicted of multiple firearms offences.

The Court ultimately found that while someone who sends a text message has a reasonable expectation of privacy, this expectation ends when the message reaches the intended recipient.

Marakah appealed to the Court of Appeal, where he was unsuccessful. The majority of the Court agreed that Marakah could have no expectation of privacy in the text messages retrieved from Winchester’s iPhone, and therefore could not make a case against their admissibility. Marakah appealed further to the SCC.

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA RULING

The SCC allowed Marakah’s appeal, set aside the convictions and entered acquittals on all charges against him.

The Court found that Marakah had a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning his text messages. Therefore, the texts used as evidence to convict him had violated his guaranteed right to be protected against unreasonable search or seizure under the Charter.

In this case, Marakah was found to be the author of the text messages that he expected to remain private.  He had asked the recipient of the messages, Winchester, on numerous occasions to delete the messages. Marakah’s conviction was thrown out because the search was unreasonable and violated his right under section 8 of the Charter.

Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, writing for the majority, stated,

I conclude that depending on the totality of the circumstances, text messages that have been sent and received may in some cases be protected under s. 8 and that, in this case, Mr. Marakah had standing to argue that the text messages at issue enjoy s. 8 protection.

The SCC did set out a four-step test to determine if and when one can reasonably expect privacy:

  1. What was the subject matter of the alleged search?
  2. Did the claimant (i.e. the person claiming privacy) have a direct interest in the subject matter?
  3. Did the claimant have a subjective expectation of privacy in the subject matter?
  4. If so, was the claimant’s subjective expectation of privacy objectively reasonable?

The SCC found that Marakah had standing to challenge the search based upon the following:

  1. The subject matter of the search was the electronic conversation between Marakah and Winchester;
  2. Marakah had a direct interest in the subject matter;
  3. Marakah subjectively expected the subject matter to be private;
  4. Marakah’s expectation was objectively reasonable.

The Court concluded that without the incorrectly admitted text message evidence, which was found to be inadmissible, Marakah would have been acquitted.

CAUTION BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

The SCC did caution that the expectation of privacy is not automatic and depends upon the facts of each case and that the outcome may be different in other circumstances. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin noted,

This is not to say, however, that every communication occurring through an electronic medium will attract a reasonable expectation of privacy and hence grant an accused standing to make arguments regarding s. 8 protection. This case does not concern, for example, messages posted on social media, conversations occurring in crowded Internet chat rooms, or comments posted on online message boards.

Therefore, we must expect that the law will adapt to changes and developments in technology and communication over time.   As these changes take place in the law, we will continue to provide updates through this blog.

To speak with an experienced criminal defence lawyer about charges laid against you or your legal rights, call Affleck & Barrison at 905-404-1947 or contact us online. We offer a free consultation and are available to help you 24/7.

 

 

Ontario Will No Longer Prosecute HIV Non-Disclosure Cases

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

We have previously blogged about criminal charges being laid against individuals living with HIV who fail to disclose their health status prior to engaging in sexual relations. Given the advancements in science and medicine in terms of treatment of the disease, we are beginning to see that changes are necessary to the criminal justice system.

ONTARIO GOVERNMENT’S ANNOUNCEMENT

On World AIDS Day (December 1, 2017), Ontario Attorney General, Yasir Naqvi, and Health Minister, Eric Hoskins, announced that Crown attorneys in Ontario will no longer prosecute cases of HIV-positive individuals who do not disclose their health status to their sexual partner if they have a suppressed viral load for six months.

World AIDS Day is recognized as a time to consider the impact that HIV/AIDS has had on Canadians and thank those dedicated to preventing the disease and caring for and treating those that the disease has impacted.

Over the years there have been remarkable medical advances and HIV treatment has slowed disease progression so that many HIV-positive individuals can now consider the disease as a chronic, manageable condition. The criminal justice system must now reflect the current reality of this disease.

HIV TRANSMISSION RISKS

Studies have found that sexual activity, whether using a condom or not, with an HIV- positive individual who is receiving prescribed treatment and has maintained a suppressed viral load poses a negligible risk of transmission.

Viral load refers to the amount of HIV virus in a person’s blood. Viral suppression is defined as suppressing or reducing the function and replication of a virus. Reaching viral suppression means that the amount of HIV in an individual is very low. Viral suppression can help HIV positive individuals live healthier and longer lives and can reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus to another person.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM RESPONSES TO HIV NON-DISCLOSURE CASES

The Supreme Court of Canada in the 2012 R. v. Mabior decision established that HIV-positive individuals have a duty to disclose their HIV status prior to sexual activity that poses a “realistic possibility of transmission”. The Court convicted Mabior on three counts because, although he had a low viral load when he had intercourse with three sexual partners, he did not use a condom. The Court found that Mabior met the test for “a realistic possibility of transmission of HIV” and therefore was convicted. At the time, the law was clear that HIV-positive individuals must disclose their status before engaging in sexual activity that poses a realistic possibility of transmission of HIV in order to avoid criminal liability.

However, the Supreme Court of Canada in the R. v. Mabior decision also recognized that scientific and medical advances regarding HIV/AIDS would progress over time and allowed for the law to evolve in the future as well.

Having reviewed all of the updated medical and scientific evidence, the Ontario government has decided that the criminal law should not apply to individuals living with HIV who have engaged in sexual activity without disclosing their status as long as they have maintained a suppressed viral load as the “realistic possibility of transmission test” is not met in these circumstances. An individual living with HIV who complies with their treatment is viewed as an individual who is acting responsibly.

In general, it is recommended by Canada’s Department of Justice that because the realistic possibility of transmission test is likely not met, the criminal law should not apply to:

  • Individuals living with HIV who are in treatment;
  • Individuals living with HIV who are not in treatment, but use condoms;
  • Individuals living with HIV who only engage in oral sex (unless other risk factors are present and the individual living with HIV is aware of those risks).

We will continue to follow any developments in the provincial and federal review of criminalization of HIV non-disclosure and will blog about updates as they become available.

In the meantime, if you have any questions about your legal rights, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We offer 24-hour phone service, 7 days a week for your convenience.

OPP Launches 2017 Festive R.I.D.E. Campaign

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

As the holiday season quickly approaches, there will be many opportunities to celebrate with family, friends and co-workers. During this time of festivities, drivers are reminded of something that cannot be stated enough: Do not drink and drive.

In an effort to reduce impaired driving across the province, the OPP has launched its annual Festive Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere (R.I.D.E.) campaign. The campaign has already begun, and is running from November 24 to January 2, 2018.

IMPAIRED DRIVING STATISTICS: ONTARIO

So far in 2017, according to the OPP, 37 people have died in collisions on OPP-patrolled roads in which alcohol or drugs were a factor. Of the 37 people killed in these accidents, 19 people were innocent victims.

During the 2016 Festive R.I.D.E. campaign, the OPP charged 562 drivers with impaired driving after performing more than 6,875 R.I.D.E. spot checks throughout the province.

The OPP wants drivers to remember this very important message:

As we gather with family and friends this holiday season, let’s make safety a priority by planning ahead. Whether arranging for a designated driver, taking public transit, or suggesting alternate arrangements for someone you think is impaired – simple steps can ensure everybody arrives home safely.

WHAT IS R.I.D.E.?

R.I.D.E. (the acronym for “Reduced Impaired Driving Everywhere”) is an Ontario sobriety program that was established in 1977 to assist in reducing the number of accidents and injuries resulting from impaired driving.

During the holiday season, and at other times during the year, local Police Services sets up spot checks throughout the province to randomly screen motorists for driving impaired. Police award responsible drivers with R.I.D.E. CHECKS Rewards booklets for obeying the laws.

The intention of a R.I.D.E. road stop is to check for sobriety, as well as valid license, ownership, and insurance; and the mechanical fitness of vehicles.

The R.I.D.E. program provides police officers with the legal right to perform planned roadside checks to identify and charge drivers who are under the influence of alcohol. R.I.D.E. gives officers the right to briefly detain and question drivers even if there are no grounds or probable cause for believing that a driver is over the legal blood alcohol limit, impaired, or has committed any offence.

While officers are not authorized to perform other criminal investigations or searches unconnected with the purpose of R.I.D.E., there are a few exceptions to this rule, for example if there are illegal drugs or contraband in “plain view” in the vehicle.

WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR A POLICE OFFICER TO REQUIRE A BREATH SAMPLE?

When a driver is pulled over for a R.I.D.E. check, a police officer may require a breath sample be given for a roadside approved screening device (“ASD”) if the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that the driver has alcohol in their body. A “reasonable suspicion” may be based on several factors, for example:

  • Bloodshot eyes;
  • Dilated pupils;
  • Slurred speech;
  • Odor of alcohol coming from the vicinity of the driver or on the breath;
  • Red rim watery eyes;
  • Erratic driving;
  • Gum chewing;
  • Driving with open windows in cold weather;
  • Headlights not being turned on;
  • Evasive responses to the police officer’s questions;
  • Leaning away from the window when questioned;
  • Rolling down the rear window instead of the front window when being questioned by the police;
  • Uncoordinated movement;
  • Sleepiness;
  • Lack of ability to follow simple instructions; and,
  • Admission of consumption.

The most common reason why drivers will be asked to blow into an ASD at a spot check is when a driver admits that they have had something to drink or consumed drugs prior to driving. The consumption of any alcohol or drugs will form the basis for “reasonable suspicion”.

CONSEQUENCES FOR IMPAIRED DRIVING

The amount of alcohol in your body is measured by the amount of alcohol in your blood. This is called blood alcohol concentration, otherwise known as BAC. Many factors can affect your blood alcohol level, including how fast you drink; whether you are male or female; your body weight; and, the amount of food in your system.

In Ontario (and the rest of Canada), the maximum legal BAC for fully licensed drivers is 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood (0.08). Driving with a BAC over 0.08 is a criminal offence.

There are also serious consequences for those found to be driving below 0.08. If you register between 0.05 to 0.08 you are considered in the warn range and will face provincial administrative penalties. These penalties include driver’s licence suspension, remedial alcohol education program, remedial alcohol-treatment program, ignition interlock and, monetary penalties depending upon the number of occurrences.

Drivers who blow over 0.08 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood will immediately have their vehicle impounded for seven days, receive an administrative road side suspension of 90 days, and be required to pay a $198.00 administrative monetary penalty.

If you have been charged with impaired driving or another driving offence, contact our office online or at 905-404-1947 to schedule a free consultation with one of our knowledgeable and experienced Oshawa lawyers. We regularly handle drunk driving and over 80 defence. We have 24-hour phone service for your convenience.

 

Driver Found Not Guilty in Car Accident that Killed Pedestrian and Her Dog

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

 

On November 21, 2017, Mr. Justice Peter Bawden found Gideon Fekre not guilty of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.

WHAT HAPPENED?

In April 2015, 18-year old Fekre was driving on Dundas St. E. approaching Carlaw Avenue when he crossed a bike lane and drove onto the sidewalk for 20 metres, ultimately striking and killing Kristy Hodgson and one of her two dogs that she was walking.

Fekre told the Court,

I was coming down Dundas from the Eaton Centre….My water bottle dropped, and I reacted, is the best way of putting it. I reached down  with my right hand to pick it up, kept my left hand on the steering wheel. …[I realized] the direction I was heading was onto the sidewalk toward a woman and her dogs.

Fekre testified at trial that he tried to avoid Hodgson by hitting his brakes and turning the steering wheel towards the road, but was unsuccessful.

Police officers testified that Fekre’s car had left the roadway, crossed a bike lane, and driven on the sidewalk for more than 20 metres at approximately 52 kilometres per hour. Fekre had told the officers at the scene that he had taken his eyes off the road for “just a second” while trying to retrieve a water bottle that had fallen onto the floor beneath his feet.

THE OFFENCE: DANGEROUS OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE CAUSING DEATH

The criminal charge of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death is a serious criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison as set out in section 249(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada. This offence consists of two components:

  • the prohibited conduct (operating a motor vehicle in a dangerous manner resulting in death); and,
  • the required degree of fault (marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in all the circumstances).

In the 2012 case of R. v. Roy, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the legal principles to be applied in determining the criminal standard for dangerous driving. The Court set out the two questions to ask in determining whether the fault component is present:

  • In light of all of the relevant evidence, would a reasonable person have foreseen the risk and taken steps to avoid it if possible?
  • Was the accused’s failure to foresee the risk and take steps to avoid it, if possible, a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the accused’s circumstances?

In the case of R. v. Roy, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the trial judge erred in law by inferring from the fact that Roy had committed a dangerous act while driving that his conduct displayed a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and entered an acquittal.

DECISION BY THE TRIAL JUDGE

The real question before the court was whether Fekre’s reaction in the less than two seconds was a “marked deviation” from what a “reasonably prudent” driver would do under the circumstances.

Was it [reaching for a water bottle] a marked departure from what a reasonable driver would have done?

Justice Bawden found that the Crown prosecutor had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Fekre made a conscious decision to divert his attention at an essential moment while driving. He did state that the driving in question could lead to liability in a civil trial, but he did not meet the higher criminal standard for dangerous driving outlined by previous decisions before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Justice Bawden specified that the duration of the interruption in attention while driving was essential in coming to his decision. The evidence showed a period of inattention lasting between 0.74 seconds to 1.18 seconds. This, according to Justice Bawden, qualified as a “momentary lapse of attention” which had been deemed non-criminal by the Supreme Court. He stated, “We cannot hold drivers to a standard of ideal decision-making when making split-second decisions”. He found that Fekre made an “imprudent but reflexive decision”.

Furthermore, Fekre’s behavior at the scene showed concern for the victim and dramatic remorse, which enhanced his credibility.

CHANGES IN THE FUTURE

The Liberal government currently has a proposal on the table to establish new road safety measures, which we have previously blogged about.

The proposed legislation includes the offence of careless driving resulting in death or bodily harm with a maximum fine of $50,000.00, license suspension, and imprisonment. We will provide updates regarding this new legislation as information becomes available.

If you are facing a dangerous driving charge or have any questions regarding your legal rights, contact Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We have a 24-hour phone service for your convenience.

Ontario Crown Prosecutors Ordered to Get More Individuals Out on Bail

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Ontario’s current bail system is simply not working. It has been reported that almost 70% of the individuals held in Ontario’s jails are waiting for their case to come before the courts. Individuals kept in jail may ultimately end up serve more time awaiting trial than if they were convicted.

We’ve previously blogged about the government’s attempts to make the justice system faster and fairer. On October 30, 2017, Ontario’s Attorney General announced a new directive as part of the Crown Prosecution Manual to help make the bail system faster and fairer. This directive will be used to provide support and guidance to Crowns (i.e. prosecutors) and will be released in the coming weeks.

BAIL HEARINGS IN CANADA

Following an arrest, an individual is either released pending the first court date or kept in custody. The right to not be detained before trial is a fundamental right in Canada and is codified in section 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This right is based on the presumption of innocence (i.e. everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty).

Everyone charged with a crime is entitled to reasonable bail unless the Crown can show just cause to deny it. The principle of “reasonable bail” refers to the terms of bail (i.e. monetary conditions and other restrictions).

A bail hearing determines whether an individual accused of a crime will be released from custody for the time leading to their trial date. In order to grant bail, the Court must consider the following three factors:

  1. Whether there is any risk that the accused will flee the Court’s jurisdiction (i.e. leave the city, province, or country) or fail to return to Court when required;
  2. Whether there is substantial likelihood that the accused will reoffend or interfere with the administration of justice if released on bail; and/or,
  3. Whether releasing the individual will undermine public confidence in the justice system.

The following factors must be considered by the Crown when determining whether the individual should be detained:

  1. Age of the individual;
  2. Presence or absence of a criminal record, related offences and breach of court orders;
  3. Concern that the individual will interfere with the administration of justice (i.e. coercion of witnesses, destruction of evidence);
  4. Presence or absence of outstanding charges in any jurisdiction;
  5. Need for and the availability of supervision of the individual while on bail;
  6. Any ties to the community; and,
  7. Availability of community supports.

GUIDANCE FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

The Supreme Court of Canada has set the stage for the new bail policies in its recent decisions in R. v. Jordan and R. v. Antic. The Court stated that reasonable bail is a right that should not be denied without a very good reason.

In the case of R. v. Antic, the Supreme Court of Canada reiterated the proper approach for conducting a bail hearing by using the “ladder principle”. The Court sent a strong message that too many individuals are being held unnecessarily in custody before trial and too many individuals are subject to restrictive conditions and forms of release. Under the ladder principle, the starting position at a bail hearing should be unconditional release and only if the circumstances of the individual in question require it should any conditions and financial requirements be added.

In the Supreme Court of Canada case of R. v. Jordan, the Court set strict time limits for the completion of criminal cases, where there are no exceptional circumstances. The Court specified a maximum of 18 months for cases in the Ontario Court of Justice and 30 months for cases in the Superior Court of Justice.

NEW BAIL DIRECTIVE

The main focus of the new bail directive is to keep more individual offenders out of jail while awaiting trial. The new policy should result in allowing more people charged with offences to be released with “realistic” conditions when warranted and only using sureties when necessary (the exception, rather than the rule). A surety is an individual appointed by the courts who promises to ensure that the individual complies with the conditions of their bail, and who puts up money that they may lose if they fail in their surety duties.

The directive recommends that the “ladder principle” be applied during bail hearings. This principle is codified in section 515(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada and simply states that an individual should be released on the least onerous form of bail unless the Crown shows reason to the court to proceed otherwise. The Crown must consider each “rung” of the ladder individually before rejecting it and moving along to a more restrictive form of release.

The new policy recommends that only necessary and appropriate conditions be imposed. Only conditions specific to each case should be recommended and should not be automatic. Conditions of release should be connected to the circumstances of the individual, the facts of the case, and meeting public safety concerns.

The directive further instructs Crowns to consider the unique circumstances that indigenous, low-risk vulnerable individuals and those with mental health and addiction issues face in being granted bail. The government will be introducing more assistance in the community for individuals who may need supervision and support, but who cannot attain a surety. For instance, the government has suggested the use of “bail beds”, which allow low-risk offenders to reside in a supervised home in the community while awaiting trial.

We will continue to monitor how this new directive is affecting the bail process in Ontario and will blog about updates as they become available.

If you have been charged with an offence or have any questions regarding your legal rights, contact Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We offer a free consultation and are available to help you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendations for Changes to Inmate Conditions in Canada

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

We have previously blogged about inmate conditions in Canada, and are now revisiting this topic in light of the recent annual report by Correctional Investigator, Ivan Zinger, submitted in Parliament on October 31, 2017.

Mr. Zinger visited numerous correctional institutions to observe and investigate the current conditions. His report outlines in detail his observations and numerous recommendations, a few of which we will discuss below.

NO THERAPEUTIC TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR FEMALE FEDERAL INMATES

Female offenders were found to be the fastest growing population in Canadian correctional facilities. Many of these inmates are struggling with serious mental illness, some of whom partake in self-injurious or suicidal behaviour.

Unfortunately there are no stand-alone treatment facilities for federal female inmates in Canada. In an emergency situation, some mentally ill women are being transferred to an all-male treatment centre to receive the help that they need. Mr. Zinger stated, “It’s just unacceptable. You do not put a woman in an all-male institution, completely isolated in segregation-like conditions.” Mr. Zinger is recommending that in cases of complex or significant mental illness, female inmates should be placed in external psychiatric hospitals.

The Correctional Service of Canada (“CSC”) responded to Mr. Zinger’s comments by stating that it proposes to put into practice that men’s treatment facilities only be used to handle mentally ill women “in emergency circumstances” and only for short periods of time. The CSC advised that it has an external expert looking into women’s mental health needs.

PROBLEMATIC USE OF SEGREGATION

The number of inmates placed in solitary confinement and the length of their stays have decreased significantly; however, Mr. Zinger reported that the conditions of segregation remain problematic. According to Mr. Zinger’s observations, some solitary confinement cells lack appropriate ventilation, windows, natural light, and he found that the outdoor segregation “yards” were bare concrete pens topped with razor wire.

There is a bill currently making its way through Parliament to address these types of issues entitled Bill C-56 An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Abolition of Early Parole Act. This proposed legislation includes a 15-day reasonable limit on segregation stays and includes crucial improvements to conditions of confinement in segregation. Mr. Zinger promises to participate in the review process of this bill.

INABILITY TO MANAGE SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS

The Correctional Investigator found that the use of physical restraints, clinical seclusion, suicide watch, and segregation to manage people with serious psychological difficulties remains problematic. Placing suicidal or distressed people in observation cells that minimally provide for the necessities of life fails to recognize that confinement of this nature may promote psychological distress.

Mr. Zinger recommends that CSC review its policies and practices for the treatment of prisoners, specifically related to health care services, solitary confinement, and instruments of constraint. Furthermore, it is suggested that external psychiatric hospital placements be utilized in cases of complex or significant mental illness.

PRISON FOOD

Prison food was found to be one of the factors that triggered the Saskatchewan Penitentiary riot in December 2016. One inmate was killed and eight others were injured. Approximately 200 medium security prisoners took part in the riot, which reportedly caused $3.6 million in damage.

Expenditures for food in Canadian prisons has been decreasing. The daily cost for food apportioned to each inmate is specified at $5.41. Mr. Zinger’s report noted that there are many complaints related to portion size, quality, selection, and substitution of food items. Mr. Zinger recommends that an external audit and evaluation of CSC food services be conducted and that the inmates concerns regarding food services be heard and addressed. The audit should include comparison of ration and per diem meal costs, prior to and after introduction of the food services modernization initiative.

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING TATTOOING

Tattooing is a banned practice in federal institutions. However, tattooing continues to occur behind bars, resulting in sharing and reusing unsterile homemade tattooing equipment. Prohibited tattooing has been associated with higher rates of infections, including Hepatitis C and HIV. There is also the risk of infecting corrections staff when they come in contact with used needles as there is no safe means for disposal.

Mr. Zinger recommends that CSC reintroduce safe tattooing as a national program in federal institutions. This program would provide important employment opportunities for inmates while incarcerated and marketable skills upon release into the community. More importantly, this program could minimize the risk of transmission of infectious diseases.

We will continue to follow developments in this matter and blog about updates as they become available.

At Affleck & Barrison LLP in Oshawaour firm and its predecessors have been protecting client rights since 1992. Our skilled criminal lawyers have significant experience defending a wide range of criminal charges and protecting our client’s rights. Whatever the nature of your offence, we can help. Call us at 905-404-1947 or contact us online for a free consultation.

Cyberbullying Laws in Canada

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

In this “digital age” and with the prevailing use of social media by an increasing number of Canadians of all ages, challenges exist for legislators and law enforcement.

According to a Statistics Canada study in 2014, the first of its kind in Canada, nearly one in five internet users aged 15 to 29 reported having been cyberbullied or cyberstalked. In 2013, the Federal Government took a step towards addressing cyberbullying in Canada following the suicides of Rehtaeh Parsons and Amanda Todd (where intimate images of them had been shared without their consent), when it introduced Bill C-13, Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act. This has significant implications, including jail time, for individuals charged under new provisions that have been added to the Criminal Code of Canada (“CC”) in the wake of Bill C-13.

WHAT IS CYBERBULLYING?

Cyberbullying is a form of bullying involving the use of communication technologies (instant messaging, social media, blogs, texting, or other internet sites) to repetitively intimidate, threaten, embarrass, or torment others.

This type of harassment, unlike face-to-face bullying, can occur 24 hours a day and is persistent and offensive. Due to the anonymity, people can say hurtful and cruel things and it is often harder to identify and stop them.

Examples of cyberbullying include:

  • Sending mean or threatening emails or text/instant messages;
  • Posting embarrassing photos of someone online;
  • Creating a website to make fun of others; or,
  • Tricking someone into revealing personal or embarrassing information and sending it to others.

CYBERBULLYING FOUND IN THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA

The CC does not contain a specific provision for cyberbullying. However, when bullying behaviour crosses the line and becomes criminal conduct, the CC contains several provisions that can speak to these actions, including:

  • Criminal harassment (section 264);
  • Uttering threats (section 264.1);
  • Intimidation (section 423(1);
  • Mischief in relation to data (section 430(1.1);
  • Unauthorized use of computer (section 342.1);
  • Identity fraud (section 403);
  • Extortion (section 346);
  • False messages, indecent or harassing telephone calls (section 372);
  • Counselling suicide (section 241);
  • Child pornography offences (section 163.1)
  • Incitement of hatred (section 319);
  • Publication of an intimate image without consent (section 162.1); and,
  • Defamatory libel (sections 298-301).

PUBLICATION OF AN INTIMATE IMAGE WITHOUT CONSENT

As of March 2015, a new offence of sharing intimate images of a person without their consent was codified in the CC. This was legislated, in part, due to the increase in “revenge porn” and similar of sharing of intimate images online.

An intimate image is defined in section 162.1(2) of the CC as an image that depicts a person engaged in explicit sexual activity or that depicts a sexual organ, anal region, or breast. The image has to be one where the person believed that the photograph was private and did not consent to having it viewed by others.

CONSEQUENCES FOR PEOPLE ACCUSED OF CYBERBULLYING

The CC specifically sets out penalties for those convicted of publishing or transmitting an intimate image of a person without consent in section 162.1(1).

If convicted of distributing an intimate image without consent the legal consequences include:

  • Imprisonment for up to five years;
  • Seizure of their computer, cell phone, or other device used to share the image;
  • An order for the removal of intimate images from the internet if the images were posted without the consent of the person or persons in the image; and,
  • An order to reimburse the victim for costs incurred in removing the intimate image from the internet or elsewhere.

RECENT EXAMPLES OF CYBERBULLYING

As this is a relatively new offence, there are only a few reported cases that deal with this conduct.

In the Ontario case of R. v. A.C., the victim had taken nude photos of herself and sent them to the offender during their relationship who in turn shared the images because he wanted revenge. The sentencing judge in this case imposed a conditional discharge (no conviction is registered as long as conditions are met) with three years probation given that the offender expressed remorse and appreciated the impact that the offence had on the victim.  One of the terms of the probation was that the offender was not to possess any intimate images as defined by section 162.1 of the CC of any person who is known to him personally.

In the British Columbia case of R. v. P.S.D., the offender took two photos of the victim partially clothed, without her consent. The photos were sent to the offender’s two friends with the intention to cause the victim emotional harm. The photographs were found to be blurry and it was difficult to recognize the victim. The accused spent sixty days in pre-sentence custody. The sentencing judge found that there was a “relatively low level of harm” and imposed a two-year term of probation.

In the recent case of R. v. A.C., the accused pleaded guilty to the charge of sharing intimate images without consent. The sentencing judge found that the offender was not remorseful and did not appreciate how seriously the crime had affected the victim. Furthermore, the offender shared the images with the world, posting on more than one website. He also included the victim’s name, age, ethnicity, and place of birth. In this case, the accused was sentenced to five months imprisonment with a probation term of twelve months. He was also ordered to perform sixty hours of community service.

If you are facing criminal charges or have questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison online or at 905-404-1947. We offer 24-hour phone service, 7 days a week for your convenience.

Ontario’s Framework for Marijuana Regulation: An Update

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

As provinces across the country continue to debate the timing of cannabis (i.e. marijuana) legislation in their respective jurisdictions, lawmakers have begun to turn their minds to how the drug will be regulated once it is legalized.

CURRENT STATE OF MARIJUANA LEGISLATION

Marijuana is currently illegal in Canada and is listed under Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Current exceptions exist only for those individuals who have been authorized to use cannabis for medicinal purposes by their health care provider. These individuals can purchase quality-controlled cannabis from a producer who is licensed by Health Canada, or produce a limited amount of cannabis for their own medicinal purposes.

LEGALIZING AND REGULATING CANNABIS IN CANADA

In April 2017, the federal government announced legislation to legalize and regulate recreational cannabis by July 2018. The proposed Cannabis Act, if passed, will establish rules for producing, using, and selling cannabis across Canada. The federal government left the design and implementation of sales and distribution to each province and territory.

Ontario was the first province or territory in Canada to publicly outline a comprehensive plan to sanction federally legalized cannabis. On September 8, 2017, Ontario announced a comprehensive framework outlining the province’s approach to the retail distribution of recreational cannabis.

MINIMUM AGE LIMIT

Ontario proposes to make it illegal for individuals under the age of 19 to buy, sell, possess, share, and grow cannabis. This is comparable to the age limit for the sale of tobacco and alcohol in Ontario.

Police officers will be authorized to confiscate small amounts of marijuana from individuals under the age of 19, but the seizure will not result in a criminal record. The person in possession of the marijuana may be subject to provincial fines.

The province of Ontario is intent on protecting its youth and will focus on “prevention, diversion, and harm reduction without unnecessarily bringing them into contact with the justice system.”

The Ontario government also plans on creating a public education campaign focused on informing young people about potential dangers of marijuana usage.

RETAIL LOCATIONS SELLING MARIJUANA

Ontario is planning for the sale and distribution of recreational marijuana to be overseen by the LCBO. However, marijuana will not be sold in the same stores as alcohol, and edibles or cannabis-infused foods will not be sold online or in retail stores.

The government of Ontario will proceed to work with municipalities, local police services, the OPP, and the federal government to help shut down any marijuana dispensaries that operate outside of the new parameters, once they are in place.

ONLINE MARIJUANA SALES

It has been suggested that online distribution will be available across the Ontario by July 2018 and 150 stand-alone cannabis stores open by the end of 2020 (80 stores to be opened by July 1, 2019).

Ontario will comply with federal requirements that limit advertising and require behind-the-counter sales similar to the way in which tobacco is currently sold. Staff will be required to follow strict requirements for age verification. Staff will also undergo mandatory training and have knowledge of products and how to use cannabis.

Delivery of online sales would require ID checks, signatures upon delivery, and no packages would be left unattended at the door.

PROHIBITED USE IN PUBLIC

Ontario proposes to restrict the places where marijuana can be consumed. It is suggested that cannabis not be used in public, in workplaces, or in motorized vehicles. Individuals will only be permitted to use recreational cannabis in private residences. These restrictions will be similar to those used to control the consumption of alcohol in public spaces and workplaces.

The Ontario government has advised that it will explore the possibility of allowing specific establishments where cannabis could be consumed legally.

LEGAL POSSESSION OF CANNABIS

Under the federal government’s proposal, adults would be allowed to have up to 30 grams of dried legal cannabis and people under 18 years old could have up to five grams. The government of Ontario appears to be in agreement with these possession limits.

We will continue to provide updates regarding the legalization of cannabis in Canada as this information becomes available, and will blog about updates as they arise.

In the meantime, if you are facing a drug related charge or have any questions concerning your legal rights, please contact Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We maintain a 24-hour call service to protect your rights and to ensure that you have access to justice at all times.

What is “Wilful Blindness” in Criminal Law?

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

In a recent decision, R. v. Downey, the Court of Appeal could find no error by the trial judge in convicting the accused of various firearm related offences arising from having imported three guns into Canada. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in applying the doctrine of wilful blindness.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Three guns were found hidden in the vehicle that Michelle-Ann Downey drove across the border from Detroit, Michigan into Canada.

The original trial judge concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Downey had been “wilfully blind” regarding the nature of what she was transporting into Canada.

On appeal, Downey’s counsel argued that the trial judge had erred in his application of the doctrine of wilful blindness. Counsel argued that there was no evidence from which to draw the inference that Downey had suspected that she had guns (rather than some other criminal contraband) in her vehicle. The Court of Appeal disagreed that the trial judge made this error.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE WILFULLY BLIND?

In Canada, a crime is defined by two things:

  1. the act itself; and,
  2. the intention behind the act.

Wilful blindness applies to the accused’s state of mind. It describes a situation where someone tries to escape criminal liability by intentionally overlooking the obvious.

The Court of Appeal in Downey specifically wrote that “[w]ilful blindness acts as a substitute for actual knowledge”. The court relied on the words of Charron J. in the Supreme Court of Canada decision of 2010 in R. v. Briscoe:

The doctrine of willful blindness imputes knowledge to an accused whose suspicion is aroused to the point where he or she sees the need for further inquiries, but deliberately chooses not to make those inquiries.

Wilful blindness has also been described as the state of “deliberate ignorance” of a certain fact. It is not enough that the accused failed to inquire about a certain fact, but instead the accused intentionally and deliberately did not inquire.

DETERMINING WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN WILFUL BLINDNESS

In applying the doctrine of wilful blindness, one does not question what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances. Instead, one must find that the accused deliberately refrained from making inquiries so as not to have his/her suspicions confirmed.

A court may make the following inquiries when considering the doctrine of wilful blindness:

  • Has the accused’s suspicion been triggered about a fact that would reveal a prohibited consequence or situation?
  • Is the accused’s suspicion about the prohibited consequence or situation probable or at least likely to occur?
  • Did the accused inquire about the suspicion?
  • If the accused inquired about the suspicion did the accused have any remaining suspicion after the inquiry?
  • If the accused had any remaining suspicions after the inquiry, did the accused make further inquiries?

THE DECISION

In the case of R. v. Downey, the trial judge found that the accused’s suspicion had been aroused to the point that there was a need for inquiry, but she deliberately did not inquire so as not to learn the truth. The trial judge gave these examples:

  • Her evidence was inconsistent with text messages located on her phone;
  • She knew it was not illegal to bring $4,000 into the country, yet she told the customs officials she was not carrying cash;
  • It was implausible that she thought she would be paid $1,000 for smuggling $4,000 into the country; and,
  • She admitted that her conscience was telling her she was doing something wrong.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and dismissed the sentence appeal by concluding that there was no basis to interfere with the sentence of two years less a day.

If you have questions regarding your legal rights, contact the criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP. To speak with an experienced criminal defence lawyer, please call us at 905-404-1947 or contact us online for a free consultation.

How the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act Can Help Prevent Drug Overdoses and Deaths

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

There is an increasing number of Canadians overdosing or dying from the use of opioids. The Public Health Agency of Canada has estimated that at least 2,458 Canadians died from an opioid-related overdose in 2016, which amounts to almost seven deaths every day.

On May 4, 2017, the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act (“Act”) became law as part of the Government of Canada’s approach to address the growing number of overdoses and deaths caused by opioids (pain relieving drugs, including fentanyl). Many of these deaths are avoidable if medical attention is obtained quickly, but evidence demonstrates that witnesses to an overdose do not call 911 for concern of police involvement.

The Honourable Jane Philpott, Minister of Health, was quoted as saying,

During an overdose, a call to 911 can often be the difference between life and death. We hope that this new law, and the legal protection it offers, will help encourage those who experience or witness an overdose to make that important call, and save a life.

WHAT LEGAL PROTECTION IS GRANTED BY THE ACT?

This Act provides legal protection for individuals who seek emergency help or witness an overdose. An overdose is defined in the Act as a

 physiological event induced by the introduction of a controlled substance into the body of a person that results in a life-threatening situation and that a reasonable person would believe requires emergency medical or law enforcement assistance.

This Act can protect you from charges for possession of a controlled substance, i.e. drugs, under section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

This Act also protects people in breach of the following conditions under section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act:

  • Parole;
  • Pre-trial release;
  • Probation orders;
  • Simple possession; and,
  • Conditional sentences.

It does not, however, provide legal protection against more serious offences, such as:

  • Outstanding warrants;
  • Production and trafficking of controlled substances; and,
  • All other crimes not outlined within the act.

The Act applies to all people seeking emergency support during an overdose, including the person experiencing the overdose. It also protects anyone who seeks help, whether they stay or leave the overdose scene before help arrives.

WHAT ARE OPIOIDS?

Opioids are drugs with pain relieving properties that are used primarily to treat pain. Over the counter opioids (i.e. Tylenol 1) can be purchased at the pharmacy without visiting a doctor to treat minor aches and pains, like headaches or tooth aches. There are also opioids that are prescribed by a doctor to relieve medium to severe pain, like after surgery.

Fentanyl is an extremely strong opioid that is prescribed for people with extreme pain, like cancer, and should only be used under medical supervision.

This type of drug can produce euphoria, or a high feeling, which leads them to be used improperly. Examples of opioids that can be prescribed medications, such as:

  • Codeine;
  • Fentanyl;
  • Morphine;
  • Oxycodone;
  • Hydromorphone; and,
  • Medical heroin.

Doctors sometimes prescribe opioids for conditions, such as:

  • Acute moderate to severe pain;
  • Chronic pain;
  • Moderate to severe diarrhea; and,
  • Moderate to severe cough.

Dependency, substance use disorder and overdose are serious side effects and risks of using opioids. They have the potential for problematic use because they produce a “high” feeling.

WHAT IS AN OVERDOSE?

An overdose can occur when one has ingested too much of an opioid. Opioids slow down the part of the brain that controls breathing. If you take more opioids than your body can handle, your breathing slows, which can lead to unconsciousness or death. Signs of an overdose include:

  • Person can’t be woken up;
  • Breathing is slow or has stopped;
  • Snoring or gurgling sounds;
  • Fingernails and lips turn blue or purple;
  • Pupils are tiny (pinned) or eyes are rolled back;
  • Body is limp.

WHAT TO DO IN CASE OF A SUSPECTED OVERDOSE

In case of a suspected overdose, the following is recommended:

  • Check to see if the person is breathing. Look, listen and feel.
  • Call 911 immediately. Tell the operator that this is a suspected overdose, so the emergency crew can bring naloxone (a medication that can temporarily stop or reverse an opioid overdose).
  • Do not leave the person alone. Wait until help arrives. If you must leave, turn the person on their side to avoid possible choking.
  • Try to keep the person awake and remind them to take frequent deep breaths.
  • If you are concerned that people you know are using opioids, you can get a naloxone kit from the public health unit or a local pharmacy.

If you are facing a drug related charge or have any questions regarding your legal rights, contact Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We offer a free consultation and are available to help you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.