Sentence of Life With No Parole for 40 Years for Quebec Mosque Shooter

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Last week two sentencing decisions were made in two high profile criminal cases in Canada. In both decisions, the court was left to decide how many years the accused will have to wait until he can apply for parole given the multiple counts of first-degree murder.

As we wrote in our blog last week, Bruce McArthur (“McArthur”), 67 years old, pleaded guilty to eight counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of eight men who disappeared between 2010 and 2017 in Toronto’s Gay Village. Justice John McMahon sentenced McArthur to life in prison for each of the eight counts. Justice McMahon did not order consecutive periods of parole ineligibility and instead decided that McArthur was not eligible for parole for 25 years.

Justice McMahon, in his sentencing reasons, stated:

Due to the accused’s age, I am satisfied that when dealing with the protection of the public, concurrent periods of parole ineligibility can adequately address the protection of the public. It would not be until Mr. McArthur is 91 years of age that he could apply for consideration for parole.

In Quebec, Alexandre Bissonnette (“Bissonnette”), 29 years old, pleaded guilty to killing six men at a Quebec City mosque on January 29, 2017. He was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 40 years.

WHAT HAPPENED AT BISSONNETTE’S SENTENCING HEARING?

In March 2018, Bissonnette pleaded guilty to six counts of first-degree murder and six counts of attempted murder as a result of his actions on the evening of January 29, 2017.

Bissonnette, armed with a .223-calibre rifle, a 9-mm Glock pistol, and 108 bullets, shot into a crowded prayer room at the Islamic Cultural Centre as Sunday prayers were ending.

The Crown prosecutor argued before the Quebec Superior Court that the parole periods should be consecutive, which would result in a total of 150 years with no chance of parole. This would have been the longest prison sentence in Canadian history. To date, the longest prison sentence of 75 years without parole has been handed down in five cases involving triple killings. For example, in the case of Justin Bourque who murdered three RCMP officers in New Brunswick in 2014.

Bissonnette’s lawyer argued that his client’s sentences should be served concurrently. This means Bissonnette could seek parole after 25 years in prison. Bissonnette was described by his lawyer as an “anxious” man suffering from depression who required alcohol in order to reduce his inhibitions on the night of the killings. He has been described by his own defence team as a “sick young man” who can be rehabilitated and has shown remorse and shame.

WHAT WAS THE JUDGE’S RULING ON SENTENCING?

Before providing his sentence to Bissonnette, Justice Francois Huot addressed the offender by stating:

By your hate and your racism, you destroyed the lives of dozens and dozens of people, and have irredeemably ruined your own and those of the members of your family.

Justice Huot then proceeded to provide a detailed account of Bissonnette’s actions on the night of the shooting.

In his ruling, Justice Francois Huot rejected the Crown’s argument and instead imposed a concurrent life sentence of a 25-year parole ineligibility period for the first five counts of murder and added a 15-year period of ineligibility for the sixth count. This means that Bissonnette will not be eligible for parole for 40 years.

Justice Huot reasoned that sentences that exceed an offender’s life expectancy and offer no hope of release are “grossly disproportionate and totally incompatible with human dignity” and would constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Although Justice Huot did not strike down the section of the Criminal Code which allows for consecutive life sentences, he used his discretion to hand down a consecutive life sentence that was less than the traditional 25 year block (as first-degree murder carries a life sentence with no possibility of parole for 25 years).

According to Justice Huot, the following aggravating factors justified a sentence harsher than the 25-year period:

  • He planned his attack carefully;
  • He targeted vulnerable and unarmed people in their place of worship; and
  • He took aim at Canada’s right to freedom of religion.

Justice Huot also considered that Bissonnette had been struggling with mental health problems in the time leading up to the shootings. He also considered the fact that Bissonnette had no previous criminal record, he pleaded guilty, and he expressed remorse.

Lawyers for both the Crown and the defence will be reviewing Justice Huot’s lengthy 246-page decision to decide whether to appeal the sentence. We will continue to follow this case and will report any developments that occur in this blog.

In the meantime, if you have any questions regarding charges laid against you or your legal rights, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. Our skilled criminal lawyers have significant experience defending a wide range of criminal charges and protecting our clients’ rights. We offer a 24-hour phone service to protect your rights and to ensure that you have access to justice at all times.

McArthur Pleads Guilty and Awaits His Sentence

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Last week, Bruce McArthur (“McArthur”) pleaded guilty to eight counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of eight men who disappeared between 2010 and 2017 in Toronto’s Gay Village.

At his sentencing hearing this week, an agreed statement of facts was presented to the court. In the statement, McArthur admitted that he intended to kill all eight men and afterward dismembered the men to avoid getting caught. He admitted that six were sexual in nature and that he kept some of his victims’ personal items as “souvenirs” and “staged” some of his victims.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

The following are some of the facts included in the Agreed Statement of Facts that were presented before Justice John McMahon in the Ontario Superior Court:

  • McArthur intended and caused each of the eight deaths;
  • Each of the murders was planned and deliberate and the murders were committed in the course of sexually assaulting the victims or committed while the victims were unlawfully confined;
  • The investigation found a duffle bag in McArthur’s bedroom containing duct tape, a surgical glove, rope, zip ties, a black bungee cord, and syringes;
  • To avoid detection, McArthur dismembered his victims’ bodies; and
  • McArthur disposed of the body parts at 53 Mallory Crescent in Toronto, where he worked as a gardener, placing some of the body parts in planters or in the ravine adjacent to the property.

ACCEPTANCE OF A GUILTY PLEA

According to the Criminal Code, a conviction or finding of guilt is not entered until the court accepts the plea.

Under section 606(1.1) of the Criminal Code, a plea of guilty can only be accepted if the Court is satisfied of the following:

  • That the accused is making the plea voluntarily; and
  • That the accused understands that the plea is an admission of the elements of the offence; and
  • That the accused understands the nature and consequences of the plea; and
  • That the accused understands that the court is not bound by any agreement made between the accused and the Crown prosecutor.

Therefore, for a guilty plea to be valid it must possess all of the following features:

  • Voluntary;
  • Unequivocal;
  • Information of the nature of the allegations; and
  • Informed of the consequences of the plea.

Justice McMahon began McArthur’s court proceedings last week by confirming that McArthur understood what is meant to plead guilty and warned him that he could not plead guilty to things he did not do just to get his case over with. McArthur replied “Yes”, when asked if he understood that he was giving up his right to a trial.

McArthur confirmed that he was not pressured by family, friends, lawyers or police officers to plead guilty.

Justice McMahon explained that McArthur would be sentenced to life imprisonment. He specifically asked, “So, you understand you’ll have to serve at least until you’re 91 before you could be eligible to apply for parole?” McArthur responded, “Yes, your honour.”

Once a guilty plea has been entered, there is no burden on the Crown prosecutor to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, a guilty plea also terminates any procedural rights, rights of appeal or the ability to challenge the ruling of guilt.

PROSECUTORS SEEK CONSECUTIVE LIFE SENTENCES

Crown prosecutors have asked the Superior Court of Justice to sentence McArthur to two consecutive life sentences for the eight murders that McArthur committed. This means that McArthur will be behind bars until he is 116 years old, without a chance for parole.

Assistant Crown attorney Craig Harper (“Harper”) argued that McArthur’s crimes were heinous, he preyed on the vulnerable and “[h]e spread fear in a community that, regardless of its multiple strengths, struggles with a tenuous sense of safety.”

In support of his request for two consecutive life sentences, Harper also put before the court that permitting McArthur a parole hearing in 25 years would mean that the families of his victims may have to face him again in court.

McArthur’s lawyer, on the other hand, requested that the court sentence his client to serve all eight sentences concurrently. This would mean that McArthur would serve all the sentences at the same time.

It is the position of McArthur’s defence lawyer that due to his age it is not necessary to extend his parole eligibility beyond the minimum 25 years, which comes with a life sentence. This means he would not be able to apply for parole until he was at least 91 years old. He argues that a longer sentence will be “unduly harsh”.

Justice McMahon will soon make a decision on McArthur’s sentence and we will provide updates in this blog as the information becomes available.

In the meantime, to speak with an experienced criminal defence lawyer about charges laid against you or your legal rights, please 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. We are available when you need us most.

Millard Files Appeal of Conviction in Father’s Death

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Dellen Millard is appealing his first-degree murder conviction and sentence for the death of his father, Wayne Millard.

WHAT HAPPENED?

In September, 2018, Millard was found guilty of murdering his father. In a judge alone court case, Millard was convicted of shooting his 71-year-old father, Wayne Millard, through his left eye as he slept on November 29, 2012.

Millard’s father’s death was originally ruled a suicide. Following Millard’s convictions in the deaths of Tim Bosma (“Bosma”) and Laura Babcock (“Babcock”), police began to re-examine Wayne Millard’s apparent suicide. Crown Prosecutors alleged that Millard killed his father in order to protect his inheritance.

During the investigation, Millard revealed to the police that his father was depressed and an alcoholic. Millard told police that he found his father dead in bed around 6 p.m. on November 29, 2012. He claimed that he last saw his father alive around noon the day before and spent the night at his friend Mark Smich’s house (his accomplice in the murders of Bosma and Babcock).

Phone records revealed that Millard travelled back to his father’s house in the early hours of the morning on November 29, 2012. The police came to learn that the gun found next to Wayne Millard was a gun purchased illegally by his son and had the younger Millard’s DNA on it.

Justice Maureen Forestall found that Millard had set up a false alibi by leaving his car, a cell phone, and his credit card at Smich’s house and he took a taxi to his father’s house.

MILLARD’S SENTENCE IN HIS FATHER’S DEATH

Following his conviction, Justice Forestall sentenced Millard to his third consecutive life sentence. Thus, Millard will serve 75 years behind bars before he is eligible to apply for parole. This is the longest term of parole ineligibility in the Canadian criminal justice system and the first time that this sentence has been handed down in Ontario.

At the time of sentencing, Justice Forestall stated:

Dellen Millard has repeatedly committed the most serious offence known to our law. He has done so with considerable planning and premeditation. In the murder of his father, he took advantage of the vulnerability of his father and betrayed his father’s trust in him.

In response to Millard’s lawyer argument that the consecutive sentence without parole eligibility is an unduly long and harsh judgement, Justice Forestall stated:

It is necessary to impose a further penalty in order to express society’s condemnation of each of the murders that he has committed and to acknowledge the harm done to each of the victims. It is not unduly long and harsh.

MILLARD’S APPEALS

Two days following Millard’s sentencing, his lawyer filed a notice of appeal with the court. According to Millard’s counsel, it will be argued that the verdict is unreasonable and the sentence is unconstitutional.

Millard will serve 75 years in prison before he will be eligible to apply for parole at 102 years of age.

Millard’s defence attorney argues that the consecutive sentence without parole eligibility is unduly long and harsh.

Millard is also appealing his first-degree murder convictions and sentences in the deaths of Tim Bosma and Laura Babcock.

Millard was found guilty of first-degree murder in the death of Tim Bosma by a jury in June 2016 after a 16-week trial. Bosma’s burnt remains were found in an incinerator on Millard’s farm. Millard is appealing his conviction. He filed a handwritten notice of appeal with 13 itemized arguments on appeal including the length of the proceedings, that the judge failed to sever his trial from that of his co-accused, that the judge failed to grant his request to move the trial out of Hamilton, that the judge allowed post-offence conduct evidence regarding the incineration of the deceased, that the judge allowed evidence which was seized contrary to his Charter rights protecting him against unreasonable search and seizure, and that the judge should have excluded evidence seized from electronic devices, amongst others.

Millard was also found guilty, by a jury of his peers, of killing his former lover, Laura Babcock, and burning her body in an animal incinerator. He filed an appeal following his sentencing arguing that his first-degree murder conviction was unreasonable and the life sentence was too harsh. He specially claims that the judge forced him to represent himself at the murder trial, despite the fact that Justice John McMahon repeatedly advised him to obtain a lawyer and his trial was adjourned twice to allow Millard to retain counsel.

We will continue to follow any developments in these cases as they make their way through the judicial system and will provide updates in this blog.

In the meantime, to speak with an experienced criminal defence lawyer about charges laid against you or your legal rights, please 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. We are available when you need us most.

Judges Respond to Opioid Deaths on the Rise in Canada

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Canada, amongst other countries, is facing an opioid crisis. Between January 2016 and June 2018 more than 9,000 Canadians died from the use of opioids. The Public Health Agency of Canada reports that opioid overdoses are increasing in our country.

Opioids are medications that can relax the body and help relieve pain, such as fentanyl, morphine, oxycodone, and hydromorphone. Opioids are drugs that can affect your mind, mood, and mental processes, which may bring about the feeling of being euphoric or “high”.

In Canada, the majority of those that have accidentally died as a result of opioids (72%) have involved fentanyl, a highly potent and addictive opioid. Fentanyl is considered up to 100 times stronger than morphine and is often mixed into opioids sold on the street. Therefore, users do not know the potency of the drugs that they are ingesting.

Canadian judges are well aware of the opioid crisis in this country and are therefore handing down harsh sentences to those found to be trafficking and importing fentanyl.

THE CASE OF PHARMACIST WASEEM SHAHEEN

In March, 2018, an Ottawa pharmacist, Waseem Shaheen (“Shaheen”), was sentenced to 14 years in prison for dealing fentanyl out of his pharmacy. Shaheen was found to be responsible for trafficking more than 5,000 fentanyl patches (street value of more than $1,000,000).

Shaheen was involved in an elaborate scheme, which even involved faking a robbery at his own pharmacy. He was found guilty of trafficking fentanyl, public mischief for reporting a fake crime to police, and insurance fraud.

Ottawa Police Detective Guy Seguin stated,

I think the sentence is a clear message…. Hopefully a clear deterrent in the court that the justice system takes this very seriously, and hopefully other professionals like Mr. Shaheen will not be involved in trafficking fentanyl.

Justice Wadden, when handing down this harsh sentence, stated,

Mr. Shaheen is not an addict. None of the fentanyl was for his own use. His only apparent motivation was greed. As a trained professional, he would have been aware of the debilitating and deadly effects of this drug in the hands of addicts. Yet he conducted a drug trafficking scheme worth over a million dollars, profiting on the misery of others.

Shaheen was stripped of his pharmaceutical license and lost all three of his Ottawa pharmacies. However, he has not begun serving his sentence as he is appealing his conviction.

THE CASE OF ASHLEY BRODERICK

Ashley Broderick (“Broderick”), a woman from Kitchener, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic fentanyl. She was one of 14 people arrested as part of a lengthy police investigation called Project Titus, which concluded with the confiscation of 1.5 kilograms of powdered fentanyl found under a bed in her home. The fentanyl had a street value of $450,000 and 398 grams of methadone were also seized, with a street value of $11,500.

Broderick was discovered to be the second in command of an organization that sold fentanyl, methadone, and cocaine throughout southwestern Ontario. When Broderick was arrested, she was found with $2,900 cash, two cellphones, and a debt list. Police also found that she had two hotel room keys, and uncovered 21 grams of fentanyl and debt lists showing hundred of thousands of dollars in drug transactions in one of the hotel rooms.

In April, 2018, Justice Craig Perry sentenced Broderick to 13 years in prison stating that the sentence needed to reflect the seriousness of the crime. He emphasized that the primary principles of sentencing were denunciation and to deter others from committing similar crimes. At the time, this was the stiffest fentanyl sentence for trafficking handed down in Ontario.

THE CASE OF BARNA OLVEDI

The stiffest fentanyl sentence in Ontario was handed down by Justice Petersen in November, 2018. Barna Olvedi (“Olvedi”) was sentenced to 15 years in prison for importing and 12 years concurrent for trafficking fentanyl. Olvedi was found to have imported 499.5 grams of 100% fentanyl from China, which would have a street value of at least $14.9 million.

In his reasons for sentence, Justice Peterson stated:

Mr. Olvdei’s offences are extremely serious. He was not only in possession of a large quantity of pure fentanyl citrate for the purpose of trafficking, he also imported it into Canada from overseas. … I have concluded that a sentence of 15 years imprisonment is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and Mr. Olvedi’s degree of personal responsibility and moral blameworthiness. This sentence satisfies the principle of restraint and achieves parity with sentences imposed on other offenders w ho committed similar crimes in similar circumstances, though there are no other cases in which the circumstances involved importing a large quantity of 100% pure fentanyl citrate.

As both the Canadian government and the judiciary respond to the opioid crisis in Canada, Affleck & Barrison LLP will continue to provide updates through this blog.

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.

New Harsher Penalties Are in Force for Distracted Drivers in Ontario

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

When the clock struck midnight on December 31, 2018, stiffer fines and long-lasting penalties for distracted drivers began in Ontario.

According to the Ontario Provincial Police, distracted drivers are the leading cause of fatal collisions in Ontario. In 2016, 65 people died in accidents caused by inattentive drivers.

WHAT IS DISTRACTED DRIVING?

Distracted driving is defined as driving a vehicle while engaging in another activity such as texting, reading, using any handheld device (including typing on a GPS or changing a playlist), grooming, eating, and drinking.

Using a cell phone while driving involves three types of distractions: visual, manual, and cognitive. Visual requires you to take your eyes off of the roadway. Manual entails taking your hands off of the wheel of the vehicle. Cognitive involves taking your mind off of driving. Even using a phone for a handsfree call provides a distraction to one’s cognition as your mind is taken off of the road.

STATISTICS REGARDING DISTRACTED DRIVING

Distracted driving has severe consequences to both the distracted driver, his/her passengers, and anyone within his/her path.

Statistics demonstrate that a distracted driver can fail to see up to 50% of their immediate environment.

Distracted drivers contribute to 20-30% of all motor vehicle collisions and are three times more likely to be involved in a motor vehicle accident than focused drivers.

According to Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation, deaths from collisions caused by distracted driving have doubled since 2000 in Ontario.

ONTARIO’S NEW DISTRACTED DRIVING LAWS

Beginning January 1, 2019, as part of Ontario’s Bill 174 , Ontario will have the toughest penalties for repeat distracted driving convictions.

Drivers who are found to be talking on their phones, texting, dialing, or emailing with a hand-held device will be fined up to $1,000 with a three-day licence suspension, and three demerit points.

Motorists facing a second conviction of distracted driving will face a fine of up to $2,000, a seven-day licence suspension, and six demerit points.

Drivers who have been convicted of driving distracted more than two times will be required to pay a fine of up to $3,000, will lose their licence for 30 days, and six demerit points.

Novice drivers with a graduated licence (G1, G2, M1 or M2) will face even tougher penalties. These drivers will face the same fines as more experienced drivers, in addition to:

  • 30-day licence suspensions for a first conviction;
  • 90-day licence suspensions for a second conviction; and
  • licence revocations and removal from the Graduated Licensing System for a third conviction.

In addition to the stiffer fines and greater penalties, those convicted of distracted driving can expect their insurance rates to increase.

The only exceptions to the distracted driving rules are when calling 911 in an emergency or when the driver is lawfully parked or safely pulled off of the roadway.

CARELESS AND DANGEROUS DRIVING OFFENCES

If you have endangered other people due to any type of distraction (using a hand-held or hands-free device) while driving, you may be charged with careless driving.

A driver convicted of careless driving faces fines of up to $2,000, six demerit points, and/or a jail term of six months, and a licence suspension of up to two years.

If you are charged with the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle upon consideration of the nature, condition, use of the vehicle, and the amount of traffic at the time, you may face a jail term of up to 10 years for causing bodily harm or up to 14 years for causing death.

TORONTO POLICE DISTRACTED DRIVING BLITZ

Toronto Police launched a two-week-long traffic blitz aimed at distracted drivers, which runs until January 20, 2019.

Officers will be using all types of vehicles to look for distracted drivers, including patrol cars, unmarked vehicles, bicycles, and on foot. Police officers will also be riding TTC buses and streetcars to observe drivers from above.

SIMPLE TIPS TO AVOID DISTRACTED DRIVING

Cell phones are a driver’s biggest distraction when they are behind the wheel. It is strongly recommended that drivers only use hands-free devices while driving to make short phone calls. Even drivers who are using hands-free devices become distracted by a telephone conversation while navigating through traffic.

It is also recommended that drivers turn off their phone or switch it to silent mode before getting into their vehicle. Placing one’s cell phone in the glove compartment or in a bag on the back seat will also help to avoid the temptation to use the phone while driving.

It is also suggested that drivers pre-program any GPS tools or music devices before starting their vehicle. If the need to make a call or return a text arises while driving, find somewhere safe to pull over and park your vehicle.

Drivers should also ensure that their children are comfortable, properly seat belted, and have everything they need prior to starting their vehicles.

If you are facing a distracted driving charge or another driving offence, please call the experienced criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP at 905-404-1947 or contact us online. We offer a free consultation, and are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Justice Tulloch Recommends Police Abolish Random Carding

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

A new report entitled “Report of the Independent Street Checks Review“, completed by Ontario Appeal Court Judge Michael Tulloch, calls for a complete ban on “carding” by police throughout Ontario.

The report, which was commissioned by the previous Liberal government, came about following consultations with more than 2,200 individuals including representatives from 34 Ontario police services. The report specifically advocates for the widespread ban on carding. Carding has been shown to disproportionately target individuals of colour, including black and indigenous people.

WHAT IS CARDING?

Carding can be described as a street check where police randomly stop an individual to ask for identifying information in an effort to keep it in a police database.

This practice is considered unacceptable as the police do not have the authority to randomly or arbitrarily stop individuals and ask them to produce ID.

The practice of carding began in Toronto in 1957 when street checks were aimed at obtaining information on persons of interest to help detectives. Toronto police were given “Suspect Cards” to document and forward information regarding persons of interest to detectives. By 2015, this practice was formally called “Community Engagements”, and involved random stops of citizens and the collection of personal information, including physical appearance, address, and contact information. As time passed, investigative street checks expanded and police were given more discretion to stop people, including those who were not acting suspiciously. These street checks became a measure of police officer performance and they were incentivized to meet required quotas, with the bar for suspicious behaviour becoming lower and lower, and eventually dropped entirely.

 ONTARIO REGULATION 58/16

In 2016, the Liberal government implemented Ontario Regulation 58/16 under Ontario’s Police Services Act , which became effective January 1, 2017, to regulate carding.

Regulation 58/16 was aimed at stopping arbitrary carding practices by police officers, especially those based on race, and to clarify the rules surrounding street checks. Race is prohibited as constituting any part of a police officer’s cause for trying to collect an individual’s identifying information.

According to the Regulation, police officers were to inform those individuals randomly stopped that their participation is voluntary. It was also specified that officers were required to provide a receipt of the interaction.

Regrettably, Regulation 58/16 has been described as confusing and convoluted and often results in police officers avoiding street checks entirely to avoid accusations of racism for misinterpreting the regulation.

According to Justice Tulloch:

The improper practice of random carding led to the Regulation. The Regulation led many police officers to not conduct any street checks, whether improper or not. The lack of any street checks at all might have encouraged some types of crime to increase. 

The Regulation as it is drafted is a confusing and somewhat convoluted document to read. It was perceived by most stakeholders through my consultations – police and community members alike – as being too complicated and hard to follow. They felt it was written for lawyers, not police officers or community members. They wanted it to be simplified. Even lawyers who I have consulted with agree.

CONCLUSIONS MADE BY TULLOCH’S REVIEW OF THE PRACTICE OF CARDING

Following his extensive review, Justice Tulloch has concluded that police should not engage in carding or performing random street checks based on race alone or stopping people in order to fill a quota.

 According to Justice Tulloch,

There is little to no evidence that a random, unfocused collection of identifying information has benefits that outweigh the social cost of the practice. … Given the social cost involved with a practice that has not definitely been shown to widely reduce or solve crime, it is recommended that the practice of randomly stopping individuals to gather their identifying information for the creation of a database for intelligence purposes be discontinued.

Justice Tulloch did acknowledge that street checks are useful in cases where there are suspicious circumstances, or when police need to identify the identity of a missing person or crime victim.

Justice Tulloch, in his report, provided 104 recommendations on how to improve Regulation 58/16. He has recommended that the government take a harder line on street checks, that definitions such as “identifying information” and “suspicious circumstances” be tightened up, and that protections during vehicle stops be broadened. He has also suggested better police training in order for officers to understand the difference between legitimate street checks and illegitimate carding.  Justice Tulloch also recommended standardized data collection of police interactions and more local hiring.

It is uncertain, at this time, whether any of these recommendations will be implemented by the current Ontario Conservative government.

In response to Justice Tulloch’s report, Community Safety and Correctional Services Minister Sylvia Jones stated:

We continue to review and assess the recommendations made by Justice Tulloch. His report will inform our work, as we fix the Liberal’s broken police legislation. Our new police legislation will reflect a simple principle: racism and discrimination have no place in policing. You can count on us to ensure that our legislation enables police to protect the law-abiding people of Ontario.

We will continue to follow any developments regarding Justice Tulloch’s report as they become available, and will provide updates in this blog.

In the meantime, to speak with an experienced criminal defence lawyer about any charges laid against you or your legal rights, please 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.

 

Mandatory Victims’ Surcharge Quashed by Supreme Court

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

The Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in Canada, has eliminated mandatory victim surcharges for convicted criminals.

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 ruling, held that the surcharge amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. The court stated that making the victim fine mandatory does not allow sentencing judges to consider mitigating factors, ignores the goal of rehabilitation, and undermines the intention of the government to address the problem of indigenous overrepresentation in prison.

WHAT IS THE MANDATORY VICTIM SURCHARGE?

The victim surcharge, which was established in 1988, is a monetary penalty that is automatically imposed on those convicted in Canada at the time of sentencing. Five years ago, the government removed the ability for judges to waive or lower this fine and made them mandatory in all cases.

The victim surcharge can be found under section 737 of the Criminal Code. The surcharge is calculated at 30% of any fine imposed. If no fine is imposed, the surcharge is $100 for lower-severity offences and $200 for more serious offences. If the offender has the financial means and the court considers it appropriate, the offender may be ordered to pay a higher amount.

The money collected from victim surcharges was intended to be used by the government to make offenders more accountable and help fund programs and services for victims of crime.

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA?

Alex Boudreault (“Boudreault”), a Quebec man, pleaded guilty to several counts related to breaches of probation orders, breaking and entering, possession of stolen property, and assault with a weapon.

Boudreault, a high-school dropout who was unable to hold a steady job, was sentenced to 36 months in prison and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of $1,400 by a court in Quebec. At that time, Boudreault argued that the victim surcharge infringed his Charter rights guaranteeing him freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. These arguments were rejected by the court.

Boudreault appealed this ruling, which was dismissed by the Quebec Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Appeal agreed to hear Boudreault’s appeal, along with six other similar cases. In all seven cases, the offenders argued that they were living in poverty and suffered from physical and mental illnesses, struggled with addiction in some cases, and could not afford the victim surcharges.

The Crown argued that the fines were not unacceptable as the offenders could ask for more time to pay and that the money collected was put towards improving the lives of the victims. For example, in Ontario, these funds are used to support 39 sexual assault and rape centres and the Ontario Child Witness Project (designed to help children and adolescents who are called to testify as victims or witnesses in court).

The appellants argued that the surcharges were a violation of section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment. They argued that the surcharge was grossly disproportionate to the crime committed.

The majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the appellants and struck down the entire section of the Criminal Code pertaining to victim surcharges and it was “declared to be of no force and effect immediately”.

The judgment reads:

The surcharge constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and therefore violates s. 12 of the Charter, because its impact and effects create circumstances that are grossly disproportionate to what would otherwise be a fit sentence, outrage the standards of decency, and are both abhorrent and intolerable.

 Justice Sheilah Martin, writing for the majority decision, also stated:

Judges have been forced to impose a one-size-fits-all punishment which does not take into account the individual’s ability to pay. In this context, the resulting indeterminate punishment results in a grossly disproportionate public shaming of disadvantaged offenders.  It is what most Canadians would call an abhorrent and intolerable punishment.

Although this decision eliminates all fines owed by the seven offenders and no future victim surcharges can be imposed in any circumstances, it does not eliminate outstanding victim surcharge orders. Those offenders who owe these fines, must seek relief in the courts on an individual basis.

The Liberal government is now left to determine the future of the surcharge. There is currently drafted legislation awaiting passage by the Senate giving judges the discretion to waive or apply the victim surcharge. A spokesperson for Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould has advised that she is reviewing the Supreme Court decision “to assess the appropriate next steps”.

We will continue to follow any developments or changes in the law as they become available, and will provide updates in this blog.

In the meantime, to speak with an experienced criminal defence lawyer about any charges laid against you or your legal rights, please 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. We are available when you need us most.

Supreme Court Declines Bid for Appeal by Toronto Cop

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

The highest court in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, has denied the request for leave to appeal made by Toronto Police Constable James Forcillo (“Forcillo”) of his 2016 conviction of attempted murder and six-year jail sentence.

We have previously blogged about both the trial court decision, in which the jury found Forcillo guilty of attempted murder in the death of 18-year-old Sammy Yatim (“Yatim”), and the Ontario appeal court decision, which upheld the trial court decision.

WHAT HAPPENED?

The shooting death of Yatim on July 27, 2013 was recorded on video by a bystander showing Forcillo shooting Yatim in two separate intervals. Forcillo shot Yatim as he stood on the steps of an empty Dundas streetcar, and then resumed firing 5.5 seconds later as Yatim lay on the ground, apparently dying.

The police were called upon after Yatim exposed himself and handled a small knife on a streetcar, prompting both passengers and the driver to flee the streetcar.

Although a jury acquitted Forcillo of second-degree murder for firing the initial fatal shots, he was held guilty of attempted murder for pausing for 5.5 seconds and deciding to fire at Yatim six more times.

Forcillo was sentenced to six years in jail for firing the second set of shots which were found to be “unreasonable, unnecessary and excessive” and an “egregious breach of trust”. Forcillo proceeded to appeal his conviction and sentence, and was granted bail while awaiting his appeal.

In November, 2017, while Forcillo awaited the appeal of his conviction he was placed on house arrest bail and was living with his estranged wife, who was also his surety. During this time, SIU investigators went to his fiancee’s home to assess the apartment’s suitability. Forcillo answered the door and tried to explain that his presence at the home was only temporary. However, a lease agreement of the rental unit was found to be signed by Forcillo and his fiancée, and his name was found on the intercom directory in the apartment lobby. Forcillo was charged with failing to comply with his recognizance.

Forcillo’s bail was revoked and he was sent to prison to await the appeal of his conviction and sentence. During this time, new charges were laid against him alleging that he committed perjury by making a “false statement under oath in an affidavit” and obstructing justice by attempting to cause a judge of the Court of Appeal to act on an affidavit made under oath that contained omissions, misleading, and or false statement.

The charges for obstruction and breach of bail conditions were withdrawn after Forcillo pleaded guilty to perjury. Forcillo was sentenced by Justice Sandra Bacchus to six months in prison, on top of his existing 6 year jail term.

In April, 2018, Forcillo’s case was heard before the highest court in Ontario where his lawyers argued, in part, that the shooting should not have been divided into two separate charges as it was one continuous event. The Ontario Court of Appeal found that there were differences between the two volleys of shots by Forcillo, and therefore upheld Forcillo’s conviction and sentence.

Forcillo applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. This was Forcillo’s last available remedy to overturn his conviction and jail sentence. The Supreme Court of Canada only hears approximately 11% of all cases that submit applications to be heard by the highest level of court in Canada. The court does not provide any reasons as to why cases are rejected at this level.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Forcillo officially resigned from Toronto Police Service on September 4, 2018.  He becomes eligible for day parole in July 2019 and eligible for full parole as of January 2020.

Forcillo’s criminal case has now ended with the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear his appeal, however, his legal battles are not yet over. There is still a coroner’s inquest to be held, a date for which has not yet been set. Also, Yatim’s parents have filed separate civil lawsuits against Forcillo.

Sergeant Dusan Pravica (“Pravica”), who arrived on the scene seconds after Yatim was shot, is also facing one count of misconduct under Ontario’s Police Services Act and awaits a hearing before the Toronto Police Disciplinary Tribunal. The Office of the Independent Police Review Director completed an investigation following Yatim’s death (and a complaint filed by Yatim’s father) and concluded that Pravica used unnecessary force, failed to assess the totality of the circumstances, and acted in haste when he Tasered Yatim as he lay on the ground. Pravica gave evidence at Forcillo’s trial that Yatim was still clutching a knife as he approached him and he felt that Yatim still posed a threat.

We will continue to follow Pravica’s case and await the results of the hearing before the Toronto Police Disciplinary Tribunal, and will report any developments in this blog.

In the meantime, if you have been charged with a criminal offence or have any questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We offer a 24-hour phone service to protect your rights and to ensure that you have access to justice at all times.

Report Released Indicates Racial Profiling by Toronto Police

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Last week, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“OHRC”) released an interim report regarding racial profiling and racial discrimination by Toronto Police Services.

The OHRC is the provincial statutory agency responsible for improving human rights and preventing systemic discrimination in Ontario.

According to the OHRC, the data showed that Black citizens are overrepresented in cases where Toronto Police use force that results in serious injury or death. In its report, the OHRC expressed its grave concern about racial profiling and discrimination of Black people by Toronto Police Services in use of force incidents, stops, questioning and searches, and charges laid.

A COLLECTIVE IMPACT

The OHRC began its inquiry into racial profiling and racial discrimination of Black citizens by the Toronto Police following concerns raised by Black communities in Toronto, and more specifically following the gunpoint arrest of four black teenagers in 2011 (known as the Neptune Four) and the shooting death of Andrew Loku in 2015.

The report, entitled “A Collective Impact” (the “report”), examined qualitative and quantitative data from the Special Investigations Unit (an agency that investigates police incidents that involve injuries or death) between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2017 in Toronto.

According to the report, between 2013 and 2017 a Black person was 20 times more likely than a White person to be involved in a fatal shooting by the Toronto Police.

In Toronto, Black people account for 8.8% of the population. According to the report, between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2017 in Toronto, Black people were found to be over-represented in the following circumstances:

  • police use-of-force cases (28.8%);
  • shootings (36%);
  • deadly encounters with police (61.5%); and
  • fatal police shootings (70%).

Renu Mandhane, the OHRC’s chief commission, stated:

A Collective Impact is the latest in a body of reports, findings and recommendations – over the past 30 years – that point to persistent concerns about anti-Black racism in policing in Toronto. Our interim findings are disturbing and call for immediate action.

The report also exposed that there was a lack of legal basis for police stopping Black citizens, inappropriate searches, and unnecessary charges or arrests.

TORONTO POLICE RESPONSE TO THE REPORT

Toronto Police Services Board (“TPSB”) and Toronto Police Services (“TPS”) have acknowledged the frustrations amongst Black citizens in Toronto who have suspected they were treated differently based upon the colour of their skin.

Toronto Police Services Board and Toronto Police Services released a joint statement responding to the interim findings, which read as follows:

We recognize that there are those within Toronto’s Black communities who feel that, because of the colour of their skin, the police, including when it comes to use of force, have at times, treated them differently. We understand that this has created a sense of distrust that has lasted generations. … The Board and the Service acknowledge that no institution or organization, including the Toronto Police, is immune from overt and implicit bias. … Nevertheless, we acknowledge that a unique obligation is required from those of us who are charged with upholding the law and protecting all of our city’s people.  And, while we may be confronting these challenges with resolve today, we are committed to doing even better. … We are ready, willing and actively doing the hard work that is required of us.

 WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The OHRC will continue to study SIU data and look for patterns in use of force incidents and examine connections between age, mental health, socio-economic status, and sex.

The OHRC will also examine the Police’s culture, training, policies, procedures, and accountability mechanisms. Lastly, the OHRC will hold focus groups with Black communities in Toronto and connect with police leaders, officers, associations, and organizations to better understand all of the issues.

The OHRC will prepare a final inquiry report likely to be completed in 2020, which will include all findings, recommendations, and any next steps.

In the interim, the OHRC has made the following requests:

  • That TPS and TPSB acknowledge that racial disparities raise serious concerns;
  • That TPS and TPSB support the OHRC’s inquiry into racial profiling and racial discrimination of Black citizens;
  • That TPSB require the TPS to collect and publicly report on race-based data on all stops, searches, and use of force incidents;
  • That Ontario implement recommendations in the Report of the Independent Police Oversight Review;
  • That the City of Toronto implement recommendations in the Toronto Action Plan to Confront Anti-Black Racism.

We will continue to follow any developments that arise regarding the OHRC’s report and findings and any response to the noteworthy report, and will inform of these developments in this blog.

In the meantime, if you are facing criminal charges, contact the experienced and skilled Oshawa criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947.  We take all steps needed to protect your best interests, both immediate and long term. For your convenience, we offer a 24-hour phone service and a free confidential consultation.  Whatever the nature of your offence, we can help.

Harsher Drinking and Driving Laws In Effect Next Week

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

In Canada, impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death and injury. Police report that in 2016, there were more than 70,000 impaired driving incidents, including almost 3,000 drug-impaired driving incidents.

On December 18, 2018, Part 2 of Canada’s new impaired driving legislation will come into force. These reforms to the impaired driving provisions of the Criminal Code include mandatory alcohol screening, facilitating the proof of blood alcohol concentration, eliminating and limiting defenses that reward risk-taking behaviour, and clarifying Crown disclosure obligations.

MANDATORY ALCOHOL SCREENING

The new reforms will implement mandatory alcohol screening in Canada. According to Canada’s Department of Justice website, research shows that up to 50% of drivers with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit are not detected at roadside check stops. Furthermore, other jurisdictions have found a significant decrease in fatal road accidents where mandatory alcohol screening was enacted.

With these changes, police officers will have an approved screening device on hand to test a breath sample of any driver they lawfully stop, even without reasonable suspicion that the driver has alcohol in their body. Under the current law, police officers must have reasonable suspicion that a driver has alcohol in their body before doing any roadside testing. Drivers who refuse to provide a breath sample could be subject to a criminal offence.

The Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, stated:

Giving law enforcement the ability to demand a breath sample from anyone following a lawful stop will make it easier to detect impaired drivers and get these drivers off of our roads. Those who get behind the wheel after using alcohol, or a combination of alcohol and drugs, will face serious legal consequences. Do your part in keeping yourself and loved ones safe and don’t mix alcohol or drugs with driving.

PENALTIES FOR IMPAIRED DRIVERS

Starting December 18, 2018, although mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment have not changed, there will be new mandatory minimum penalties including fines, and some higher maximum fines.

The new legislation for first time offenders with high blood alcohol concentrations that have not caused bodily harm or death is as follows:

  • With blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) of 80 to 119 mg of alcohol per 100 mL of blood, first time offenders are subject to a mandatory fine of $1,000;
  • With BAC of 120 to 159 mg of alcohol per 100 mL of blood, first time offenders are subject to a mandatory fine of $1,500;
  • With BAC of 160 mg or over of alcohol per 100 mL of blood, first time offenders are subject to a mandatory fine of $2,000; and
  • A first time offender who refuses to comply with a lawful demand for a breath sample is subject to a $2,000 minimum fine.

For alcohol-impaired driving that does not cause bodily harm or death, the new mandatory minimum penalties for a second offence include a mandatory minimum 30 days imprisonment, and for third and subsequent offences a mandatory minimum penalty of 120 days imprisonment.

Drivers will also face the maximum penalty of life imprisonment for those convicted of dangerous driving causing death, which is a stiffer penalty than the current laws of a maximum of 14 years in jail.

DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE RELEASE NAMES OF ACCUSED IMPAIRED DRIVERS

Beginning November 15, 2018, Durham Regional Police launched their Festive R.I.D.E. program. Police officers have been conducting R.I.D.E. checks in Ajax, Pickering, Whitby, Oshawa, and Clarington.

Since commencing this campaign, Durham Police have been releasing the names of those charged with impaired driving every Monday under “Hot Topics” on their website. Those drivers that have been charged are identified by their name, age, gender, city, and the specific charges laid against them.

Earlier this month, York Regional Police also reported that they have adopted a “name-and-shame” campaign to keep impaired drivers off of the roads. York Regional Police will now release the names of those charged with impaired driving every Monday for the foreseeable future.

Durham Regional Police reported that its fourth week of the Festive R.I.D.E. program has led to 20 drivers being charged with drinking and driving offences after stopping more than 4,100 vehicles. In total, Durham Police has charged 63 drivers with drinking and driving offences during the four weeks of the R.I.D.E. program (down from 72 drivers charged at the same time last year). They also report that 51 motorists registered a WARN on a roadside screening device and had their driver’s licence suspended for 3 days.

If you have been charged with a driving offence of any kind or have any questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the experienced and knowledgeable criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We offer a 24-hour phone service to protect your rights and to ensure that you have access to justice at all times.