Police Warn that Airbnb Rentals are Being Used for Human Trafficking

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Airbnb has become an immensely popular avenue used by individuals to list their homes and apartments for others to use when vacationing. Nevertheless, Toronto police have found an increase in pimps using Airbnb rentals in recent years. Human traffickers may choose to use Airbnb rentals instead of motels due to the greater likelihood for anonymity. Detective Sergeant Nunzio Tramontozzi has stated:

There has to be more due diligence on the part of the … people that are renting out their properties. We have a good relationship with Airbnb. We have brought our concerns to them, and they’re working with us to try and rid pimps of using their properties in Toronto.


In mid-February, Toronto police arrested two men who are alleged to have forced a 19-year-old woman into the sex trade for more than a month, running most of their business at various Airbnb properties in the Greater Toronto Area. The men are facing 58 charges, including human trafficking charges. Police allege that the men took the woman’s identification and forced her to turn over all the money she earned to them. When the woman got into an argument with the two men and told them she no longer wanted to work as an escort, one of the men pointed a firearm at her face. A shot was fired and the woman was shot in the buttocks area. The men then transported her to several addresses in the GTA. The woman finally escaped and sought medical attention at a hospital in Brampton.


Human trafficking involves the exploitation for profit of a person through force, fraud, or coercion. Victims are mostly women and children who are forced to provide their labour or sexual services. Exploitation often occurs through intimidation, force, psychological manipulation, emotional abuse, lies, addiction, sexual assault, isolation, taking control of their ID and money, and threats of violence to themselves or their families.

Ontario is a major centre for human trafficking in Canada, with approximately two-thirds of reported cases arising in Ontario. Girls as young as 13 are being recruited by pimps into a world of unpaid sex work, often recruited on social media or at public places like shopping malls and playgrounds. The relationship usually begins as a romantic one and then the pimps ask the girls to perform sexual services on clients as a favour and with the promise of financial reward. Over time, the pimps threaten violence, take away their phones and ID and offer the girls hard drugs.

Human trafficking is an offence found in the Criminal Code of Canada (“CC”) and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The CC includes four indictable offences to address human trafficking, including:

  • Trafficking in persons (section 279.01);
  • Trafficking of a person under the age of eighteen years (section 279.011);
  • Receiving financial or material benefit knowing it results from the commission of an offence under sections 279.01 and 279.011 (section 279.02); and
  • Withholding or destroying documents (section 279.03).

There are many other offences contained in the CC that also apply to human trafficking cases including kidnapping, forcible confinement, uttering threats, extortion, assault, sexual assault, prostitution related offences and criminal organization offences.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contains a provision that prohibits the bringing into Canada of persons by means of abduction, fraud, deception or use of threat of force or coercion. Section 118 of this Act includes this provision with the accused facing a maximum penalty of a fine up to $1 million and/or up to life imprisonment.

If you have been charged with human trafficking or a related charge 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 have a 24-hour phone service for your convenience. We are available when you need us most.

U.S. Border Agents Can Demand Access to Your Cell Phone

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

As schools go on holiday for March Break, many of those living in Ontario will begin their vacation by crossing the border into the United States. But be aware.  U.S. border agents can demand access to your cell phone and request your password to unlock your cell phone without probable cause.

In 2017, U.S. border agents inspected more than 30,000 phones and other devices. This was found to be an increase of nearly 60% from 2016.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection released an updated directive governing border searches of electronic devices on January 5, 2018 stating:

…border searches of electronic devices have resulted in evidence helpful in combating terrorist activity, child pornography, violations of export controls, intellectual property rights violations, and visa fraud.


The recently issued directive in the U.S. entitled “Border Search of Electronic Devices” provides the government with wide legal authority to search travellers’ belongings without a warrant at the border, including personal electric devices.

Basic Search

During this “basic search”, the officer may review and analyze information on the device that would be ordinarily visible by scrolling through the phone manually, including contact lists, call logs, calendar entries, text messages, pictures, videos and audio files.

Advanced Search

Border agents are authorized to perform an “advanced search” by connecting a phone to a hard drive to copy its contents for analysis when the need arises. This type of search may arise in cases where a traveller is on a watch list, there is “reasonable suspicion” of law-breaking or national security concerns. This type of analysis requires the approval of a supervisor.


According to the new directive, agents have been granted the authority to request a password to open your phone without probable cause. You are allowed to refuse this request, however, doing so could result in your device being detained for further examination, your travel may be delayed, you can be denied entry if you are not a U.S. citizen or it may become difficult for the traveller to enter the U.S. on future occasions.

The Cloud

Border agents are not authorized to download old files from the cloud. They are allowed to search the data that is apparent on the phone, but cannot access anything that may be stored remotely. Officers can ask that travellers put their devices in an offline mode (airplane mode) or disable their network connectivity.

Sensitive Information

Lawyers who are crossing the border may claim solicitor-client privilege over documents by identifying sensitive documents. The officer must then consult with customs’ legal counsel and the U.S. attorney’s office to determine which files should be isolated from the regular search.

Destruction of Records

Copies of information held by U.S. customs must be destroyed following a search and any electronic devices must be returned, unless a security threat has been discovered.


It is recommended that individuals crossing the border be patient and allow the U.S. border agents to do their job. Canadians should be prepared to turn their phones over to the U.S. border agents, if asked. Canadians may be denied entry to the U.S. if they do not comply with requests made by the border agents. If assistance is requested to access your personal device, it is recommended that you comply to avoid any challenging situations.

Canadians are advised to put their mobile phones on “airplane mode” to protect their privacy, as border agents cannot download remotely or from the cloud without giving a reason.

It is highly recommended that private material be deleted from your electronics or transferred to the cloud prior to crossing the border. You may want to consider having backups of sensitive or important information on your phone in the event that your phone is detained by the government.

If you have questions regarding your rights, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We take all steps necessary to protect your best interests. We maintain a 24-hour emergency service line and offer free confidential consultation to all perspective clients.



Jury Finds Anne Norris Not Criminally Responsible in Death of Marcel Reardon

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

A Newfoundland jury found Anne Norris (“Norris”) not criminally responsible in the death of 46-year-old Marcel Reardon (“Reardon”).

Following the verdict, Norris has been placed in the custody of the Newfoundland and Labrador Criminal Mental Disorder Review Board for psychiatric treatment.


Norris pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in Reardon’s death, but admitted to repeatedly hitting him in the head with a hammer early in the morning of May 9, 2016.

The following details admitted by Norris were presented to the jury:

  • Norris socialized with Reardon and two others downtown in St. John’s on May 8, 2016, before leaving alone and going to Walmart on Topsail Road;
  • Norris purchased a knife and a 16 oz. Stanley hammer at a Walmart hours before the incident;
  • Norris returned downtown and in the early morning hours of May 9, 2016 she and Reardon took a cab to Harbour View Apartments on Brazil Street, where she lived;
  • Norris killed Reardon by striking him several times in the head with the hammer, then moved his body under a set of concrete steps;
  • Norris put the murder weapon, her jeans and some rope into a borrowed backpack and threw it in St. John’s harbour;
  • The backpack was recovered two days later and turned over to the police; and
  • Norris admitted to owning a sock, scarf, bathrobe and a pair of sneakers taken by police from her apartment, which were found to contain Reardon’s blood.

The issues at trial were whether or not Norris was mentally sound enough to be criminally responsible for Reardon’s death, and if so, whether or not the killing included the intent and planning required for first-degree murder.

Norris’ lawyers maintained that she was suffering from a mental disorder when she attacked Reardon and therefore should be found “not criminally responsible”. Her lawyers suggested that Norris was “a ticking time bomb” and had been on a “downward spiral” since the age of 24. She has received treatment in the past for psychosis and has a longtime belief that she was being sexually assaulted by various men while she slept. She had been released from the Waterford Hospital practically untreated days before she killed Reardon. Lawyers argued that Norris thought Reardon was going to sexually assault her and that’s why she attacked him.

On the other hand, Crown prosecutors argued that the evidence demonstrated that Norris was not delusional and planned a deliberate killing, even going so far as to dispose of the weapon. Lawyers for the Crown reasoned that although Norris had a mental illness, there was no evidence of her being symptomatic at the time of the attack.

The trial lasted one month and 31 witnesses were called, including police officers, friends of Norris, Norris’ father, employees of Walmart, the province’s chief medical examiner, five psychiatrists and one psychologist.


Not criminally responsible (“NCR”) is defined in section 16 of the Criminal Code. An individual is NCR if he/she was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence, and:

  • the mental disorder made it impossible for him/her to understand the nature and quality of what he/she did; or
  • the mental disorder made it impossible for him/her to understand that what he/she did was morally wrong, not just legally wrong.

The party raising the issue of NCR has the burden. More likely than not it is the defence who must prove the accused is NCR on the “balance of probabilities”.

Once an individual is found NCR, he/she is not acquitted. Instead the individual is diverted to a provincial or territorial review board (pursuant to section 672.38 of the Criminal Code), which are independent tribunals made up of at least five people, including a licensed psychiatrist. Each year cases are heard by the board at which point the board can impose one of the following:

  • that the individual remain detained in a hospital with varying levels of privileges;
  • that the individual be released on a conditional discharge (individuals are allowed into the community where they have substantial freedom and relatively light conditions); or
  • that the individual be released on an absolute discharge (individuals are released into the community without any supervision).

Absolute discharges are only granted when the board finds the individual is not a “significant threat” to public safety.

The Crown, in this case, has 30 days to decide whether it will seek to appeal the verdict. In the meantime, Norris will remain in psychiatric care until a review board deems her fit to be released into the community.

If you have been charged with a serious 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.




Canada’s Prostitution Laws are Under Review in London, Ontario

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

A court hearing is underway in London, Ontario regarding the constitutionality of Canada’s prostitution laws.

Hamad Anwar and Tiffany Harvey face more than two dozen sex-related charges each, including profiting from the sex trade, advertising sexual services and forcing someone into the sex trade. In November 2015, the two accused were charged after London police raided the escort agency where they worked, Fantasy World Escorts, following a seven month investigation.


The Crown prosecution takes the position that the new prostitution laws protect women by decriminalizing the sale of sex, but penalize the purchase of it and consequently reduce the demand.

The accuseds’ lawyers are arguing that some of the charges against their clients violate sex workers’ constitutional right to security of the person. They take the position that the specific charges of procuring, advertising and materially benefiting from the sexual services of someone else should be struck down.

The defence called academic, Chris Atchison, as their first expert witness. He gave evidence that the new prostitution laws make it less safe for people in the sex trade to do their jobs. Atchison stated in court, “I believe the application of these laws makes things worse for the most vulnerable people on the street but also for others in the sex industry.”


Bill C-36 was the Conservative government’s response to the prostitution laws that were struck down in December 2013 by the Supreme Court of Canada in the decision of Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, held that the laws prohibiting bawdy houses, living off the benefits of prostitution and communicating in public with clients infringed the rights of prostitutes by depriving them of security of the person. The Supreme Court gave the government one year to draft new laws that would not infringe on the constitutional rights of prostitutes.

Prostitution is legal in Canada, however, under Bill C-36 several activities surrounding it are criminalized. Bill C-36 came into force on December 6, 2014, encompassing prostitution and human trafficking-related amendments. The new law criminalizes the advertising and buying of sex, but decriminalizes the sale of sex.

The Bill specifically targets the buyers of sex, with penalties including jail time (up to five years in some cases) and minimum cash fines that increase after a first offence.

Authorities anticipated that Bill C-36 would be challenged in court at some point. Advocates who support the new laws appreciate that it punishes those individuals who buy sex, not those who sell it. On the other hand, opponents of the new law feel that the legislation forces sex workers underground due to fear of arrest and criminalizes advertising sex. The concern is that sex workers and their clients seek out more isolated and dangerous locations. This legislation also decreases the ability for those in the sex trade to screen their clients prior to meeting, which increases the risk of violence.

We will continue to provide updates on this blog regarding any developments of this case as it continues to be heard before the court.

In the meantime, if you have been charged with a sexual 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. For your convenience, we offer 24-hour phone services. We are available when you need us most.

Jury Finds Gerald Stanley Not Guilty in Shooting Death of Colten Boushie

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

After deliberating for 13 hours, an all-white jury in Battleford, Saskatchewan found Gerald Stanley, a farmer from rural Saskatchewan, not guilty in the 2016 death of 22-year-old Colten Boushie (“Boushie”), a resident of the Red Pheasant First Nation.

Widespread attention has surrounded this trial and the verdict reveals a deep racial divide in Saskatchewan. Some advocates believe that this case highlights a long standing need for more diversity on Canadian juries.


On August 9, 2016, Gerald Stanley (“Gerald”) and his son, Sheldon Stanley, (“Sheldon”) heard an SUV traveling down their gravel driveway leading to the family farmhouse, garage and shop.

Boushie, his girlfriend Kiora Wuttunee, and three other passengers (Cassidy Cross-Whitstone, Eric Meechance and Belinda Jackson) were inside the SUV. After a day of swimming and drinking they had a flat tire. They had initially pulled into a farm, where they tried and failed to steal a truck. They then drove onto Gerald’s property where they tried to start an ATV.

Gerald and his son saw two men jump back into the SUV, which quickly backed up and started to drive away. Gerald kicked the tail light of the SUV and his son smashed the front windshield with a hammer.

As the SUV drove away, it crashed into Gerald’s car. Gerald proceeded to his shed to grab a semi-automatic handgun as he was afraid for his son’s safety. He testified that he loaded two shells in the magazine. He then fired two warning shots.

Gerald testified he feared that the SUV had run over his wife. He then ran as fast as he could back to the SUV. When he heard the SUV engine rev, he went to the driver’s window to reach in with his left hand to turn off the ignition. He testified that the gun went off accidently at that moment, but he never pulled the trigger.

Jackson testified that she heard Gerald tell his son to “go get a gun”. She stated that Gerald retrieved a gun from the shop and she saw him shoot Boushie twice in the head.

Sheldon testified that he heard a gunshot as he walked up the deck leading to his house, and then another one as he entered the home. He then heard a third gunshot when he came out of the house. He saw his father by the SUV’s driver’s window with a semi-automatic pistol in one hand. Sheldon recalled his dad saying, “It just went off. I just wanted to scare them.”

Forensic investigation determined that Boushie was shot with a Tokarev semiautomatic pistol that was found in Gerald’s home.


In addressing the jury, Gerald’s defence lawyers emphasized the inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses from the SUV. The defence argued that there was no evidence that Gerald meant to kill Boushie. The defence took the position that it was a freak accident that ended in tragedy.

On the other hand, the Crown prosecutors argued that Gerald had fired two warning shots in the air and then walked up to the SUV Boushie was in and intentionally shot Boushie in the head. The Crown also explained to the jury that if they were not convinced that Gerald had an intention to kill Boushie, they must consider him guilty of manslaughter. It was argued that a verdict of manslaughter would be appropriate because Gerald acted unlawfully by carelessly using a firearm.


Chief Justice Martel Popescul addressed the jury following the lawyers’ closing arguments and set out the three possible verdicts:

  • Guilty of second degree murder;
  • Guilty of manslaughter; or
  • Not guilty.

The Crown bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Both the Crown and defence agreed that it was established beyond a reasonable doubt that Gerald caused the death of Boushie. The real question put to the jury was whether Gerald caused Boushie’s death unlawfully by committing an assault or whether the shooting was an unintentional act that had unintended consequences.

Chief Justice Popescul instructed the jury that it was within Gerald’s rights to get his gun and fire warning shots into the air, but the jury must decide whether the actions he took after that continued to be lawful.


Every Canadian charged with a crime has the right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal, this includes an impartial jury. Jury trials are made up of 12 adult laypersons from the community who are required to listen carefully to the evidence and arguments from both sides and unanimously agree on a verdict. Jury verdicts, representing a cross-section of Canadian society, are meant to symbolize that the community has spoken.

Each side, the Crown prosecutor and defence, has a number of peremptory challenges (the number varies with the offence charged). These peremptory challenges allow each lawyer to automatically disqualify potential jurors, no explanations required.

Lawyers can also “challenge for cause”, which involves a judge asking potential jurors pre-approved questions, including whether they may have a bias in the case.

After all of the evidence has been called and the lawyers have presented their arguments, the judge instructs the jury on the law and advises them on what must be taken into account when making their decision. The jurors then proceed to discuss the case amongst themselves and must come to a unanimous agreement on the verdict. After the trial, the jurors are not allowed to divulge the discussions that took place in the jury room.

If you have been charged with a serious offence, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We are available 24/7 to assist you when you need us most.

Nova Scotia’s Top Court Orders New Trial for Taxi Driver Acquitted of Sexual Assault

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Nova Scotia’s Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial for a taxi driver who was acquitted of sexually assaulting an intoxicated female passenger because he could not determine whether the victim consented before she passed out.


On May 22, 2015, police found taxi driver, Bassam Al-Rawi, in a parked cab in Halifax’s south end. An unconscious female was found in the back seat with her legs propped up on the front seats, naked from the waist down with her breasts exposed. Al-Rawi was discovered leaning between the female’s open legs with his zipper undone and the back of his pants partly down. Al-Rawi was also found to be hiding a pair of the female’s urine-soaked pants and underwear.

Police woke the female complainant, who could only tell them her name, but not why she was there or what had happened.

Al-Rawi was charged with sexual assault (section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada). He was tried before Judge Gregory E. Lenehan on March 1, 2017.

During the trial, a forensic alcohol specialist testified that the female was extremely intoxicated after drinking 5 beers, two tequila shots and one vodka-cranberry drink. The expert testified that she was drunk enough to forget events and lose track of her surroundings. It was determined that the woman’s blood-alcohol level was three times the legal limit.

Judge Gregory Lenehan set out the requirements for finding Al-Rawi guilty of sexual assault. He stated:

In order for Mr. Al-Rawi to be convicted of the offence that’s before the court, the Crown have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Al-Rawi touched (the complainant), that it was in such a way it violated her sexual integrity and that it was not done with her consent. In other words, it was done without her consent.

At trial, Judge Lenehan found it reasonable to conclude that Al-Rawi was engaging in or about to engage in sexual activity, but he acquitted Al-Rawi on the basis that the Crown had produced “no evidence” of lack of consent or lack of capacity to consent when Al-Rawi was touching the complainant. Judge Lenehan could not determine when the female had lost the capacity to communicate. He wrote that “[c]learly, a drunk can consent.” Judge Lenehan ruled that “[a] lack of memory does not equate to a lack of consent.”


The Crown prosecutor appealed the trial decision to a higher court on the basis of several legal errors made by the Judge at trial and requested an order for a new trial.

In the unanimous decision, the appeal court agreed that Judge Lenehan had made several errors in law. The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

Although the Court of Appeal did not find that Judge Lenehan had erred in law by stating that “a drunk can consent”, his application of the legal test for a person’s capacity to consent to sexual activity was a legal error. The trial judge held that the Crown had not proven incapacity beyond a reasonable doubt because it was unknown the “moment the complainant lost consciousness”. Thus, Judge Lenehan implied that prior to becoming unconscious the complainant would have had the capacity to consent. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law by equating incapacity solely with unconsciousness.

The Court of Appeal also found that Judge Lenehan had erred in discounting the extensive circumstantial evidence that would have allowed him to infer that the complainant had not voluntarily agreed to engage in sexual activity, or that she lacked the capacity to do so. Some of the circumstantial evidence noted by the Court of Appeal included:

  • the complainant was unconscious when found by police;
  • Al-Rawi was trying to hide the urine-soaked pants and underwear from the police;
  • the location of the cab was not near the complainant’s home or on the route to the complainant’s home;
  • the complainant had no memory of her time in the cab;
  • the complainant’s blood alcohol level was between 223 and 244 mg/100mL; and
  • the complainant had to be shaken awake by police in the cab and woke up confused and upset.

Justice Duncan Beveridge wrote:

…there was ample circumstantial evidence that would permit a trier of fact to infer that the complainant did not consent or lacked the capacity to do so.


The trial judge or jury must determine if it has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent, or lacked the capacity to consent. In the Court of Appeal decision in this matter, Justice Beveridge set out the test for determining whether a complainant has the requisite capacity to consent.

In order to prove that the complainant did not have the required capacity to consent, the Crown must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not have an operating mind capable of:

  • appreciating the nature and quality of the sexual activity; or
  • knowing the identity of the person or persons wishing to engage in the sexual activity; or
  • understanding he/she could agree or decline to engage in, or to continue, the sexual activity.

In cases where drugs or alcohol are involved and the complainant has little or no memory of the event, difficulties arise in determining whether the complainant had the capacity to consent. Absent direct evidence from the complainant that he/she did not consent, the judge or jury must rely on circumstantial evidence to determine the absence of consent.


A new trial was ordered by the Court of Appeal. The date for the new trial has not been set. We will provide updates in this blog as new developments regarding this case become available.

In the meantime, if you have been charged with a sexual assault 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 have a 24-hour phone service for your convenience.

Acquittal Upheld for Ontario Teacher Who Secretly Videotaped Female Students

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a trial court’s decision to acquit a teacher who used a camera pen to video record the chest and cleavage of his female students. The top court in Ontario found that although the recording had been done for sexual purposes and was therefore inappropriate, the students had no reasonable expectation of privacy.


High school teacher, Ryan Jarvis, used a camera pen to video record the chest and cleavage of female students and one female teacher. The secret recordings were made in various locations in and around the school and involved 27 female students aged 14 to 18. Jarvis was observed by the principal of the school talking to a female student while holding a pen with a flashing red light at its top. The principal seized the pen and sent it to the police. The police found several recordings of female students focused on their breasts stored on the pen.

Jarvis was charged with voyeurism under section 162(1)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada (“CC”).

In November 2015, Superior Court Justice Andrew Goodman found Jarvis not guilty of that offence. Justice Goodman held that Jarvis’ behaviour had been “morally repugnant and professionally objectionable”, but he did not find that the videos were sexually motivated.

The Crown prosecutor appealed this ruling and argued that Jarvis’ behaviour was sexually motivated since the subjects were all females and the camera was deliberately focused on their breasts.

The Court of Appeal was unanimous in concluding that the recording was both “surreptitious” and “done for a sexual purpose”. However, the majority of the Court found that the recording was made under circumstances that did not give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore upheld Jarvis’ acquittal at trial.

The majority of the Court stated “that we live in an open society where visual interaction is part of everyday life and is valued” and that students know they can be observed in places where they gather.

If a person is in a public place, fully clothed and not engaged in toileting or sexual activity, they will normally not be in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.


The criminal offence of voyeurism was added to the CC in 2005 to address public concerns that technology could be used to easily spy on individuals for sexual purposes.

According to section 162 of the CC, the offence of voyeurism can be committed in two ways, either through observation or by visual recording.

There are two separate conditions that must exist in order to be convicted of the offence of voyeurism:

  • the “surreptitious” nature of the observation/recording; and
  • the reasonable expectation of privacy.

The secret observation or recording must capture the image of a person’s genitals and/or breasts or sexual activity, or the observation/recording must occur for a sexual purpose.

It is also a crime to print, copy, publish, distribute, circulate, sell, advertise or make available the recording or image that was secretly obtained.

A secret or “surreptitious” recording has been interpreted by the courts using its ordinary dictionary meaning.   Some examples of surreptitious recordings that have been prosecuted as voyeurism include:

  • Video images captured by a camera concealed in a stepdaughter’s bedroom;
  • Video recording of teenage girl in a hotel shower by a camera concealed in a shaving bag;
  • Video images captured by a camera hidden in a wastebasket in an office washroom; and,
  • Video images of a man at a urinal in an office washroom taken through a cubicle.

Voyeurism is considered a hybrid offence. If the Crown proceeds by way of indictment (most serious), the maximum sentence is five years imprisonment. If the Crown proceeds by summary conviction, the maximum sentence is six months imprisonment.

A person convicted of voyeurism will be placed on Canada’s sexual offender registry for at least 10 years. A person convicted of multiple counts of voyeurism will placed on the registry for life.

If you are facing voyeurism charges, or charges related to any other sexual offences, or have any questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. For your convenience, we offer 24-hour phone services. We are available when you need us most.

Indefinite Solitary Confinement Ruled Unconstitutional by B.C. Supreme Court

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

We have previously blogged about solitary confinement in Canada and are revisiting this issue given the recent decision from the B.C. Supreme Court striking down sections of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (“CCRA”) that permit prolonged and indefinite solitary confinement in federal prisons.


In this case, lawyers for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the John Howard Society of Canada were asking the Court to end administrative segregation in federal penitentiaries in Canada. The Plaintiffs argued that sections 31, 32, 33 and 37 of the CCRA were unconstitutional as they infringe upon an inmate’s rights and freedoms granted by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”).

The Correctional Service Canada (“CSC”) procedure known as administrative segregation (similar to solitary confinement) authorizes the placement of inmates in small cells for up to 23 hours a day without meaningful human contact. This type of segregation has no legislated time limits and is left to the discretion of the warden.

The B.C. Court ruled that the laws regarding administrative segregation violate section 7 of the Charter guaranteeing life, liberty and security of person. These infringing laws allow indefinite solitary confinement, prevent independent oversight of segregation decisions and deprive inmates from having a lawyer represent them at segregation review hearings.

The Court also ruled that these laws discriminate against mentally ill and Indigenous inmates contrary to section 15 of the Charter, which guarantees equality before and under the law and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.

Justice Peter Leask wrote in his decision:

I am satisfied that the law … fails to respond to the actual capacities and needs of mentally ill inmates and instead imposes burdens in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating or exacerbating their disadvantage.


The B.C. Court heard extensive testimony from former prisoners, researchers and correctional officials who addressed the heath effects of administrative segregation. The Court held that solitary confinement places prisoners at significant risk of serious psychological harm and increased risk of self-harm and suicide.

Justice Leask emphasized that based on the evidence solitary confinement increases destructive symptoms and behaviours, including “anxiety, withdrawal, hypersensitivity, cognitive dysfunction, hallucinations, loss of control, irritability, aggression, rage, paranoia, hopelessness, a sense of impending emotional breakdown, self-mutilation, and suicidal ideation and behaviour.”

The laws pertaining to solitary confinement were found by the Court to be overbroad and damaging to institutional security. Furthermore, the Court held that the laws authorizing solitary confinement do so in circumstances where lesser forms of restriction would achieve the same results.

The Court ruled that a procedure of prisoner segregation must include time limits. Time limits would “create the pressure to ensure that decisions about alleviating an inmate’s segregation were made and implemented promptly, while still allowing CSC to use the practice for short periods to address security concerns.”

International consensus has determined that 15 days is an ideal cap for segregation placements. Justice Leask did not prescribe a set number of days, but considered 15 days “a defensible standard”.


Justice Leask suspended his decision for 12 months to give the government time to draft new legislation, which must include strict limits on the amount of time an inmate can be segregated.

This B.C. decision requires broader legislative changes than the ruling made by the Ontario Superior Court last month, which we previously blogged about. In the Ontario case, the Judge held that the lack of independent review of prisoners placed in solitary confinement means that there is no accountability for the decision to segregate. Justice Marrocco put his decision on hold for a year to allow Parliament to make the legislative changes necessary. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association recently announced it would appeal this Ontario decision.


One day following this B.C. decision, Ontario announced an agreement between the Ontario government and the Human Rights Commission ensuring that inmates with mental health disabilities will no longer be placed in solitary confinement across the province.

This Order includes the process of properly identifying inmates with mental health disabilities (including those at risk of self-harm or suicide) and issuing appropriate alerts verified by professionals. The alert would indicate that alternatives to segregation must be considered for the particular inmate.

We will continue to follow the developments in the law regarding solitary confinement in Canada and will provide updates through this blog.

In the meantime, should you have any questions regarding your legal rights and need to speak with an experienced criminal defence lawyer please call Affleck & Barrison at 905-404-1947 or contact us online. For your convenience, we offer 24-hour phone services.

30 Days in Jail for Man Convicted of Drinking and Driving

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

An Ontario man, who was convicted of drunk driving (over 80 driving), was recently sentenced to 30 days in jail despite having no criminal record.


In the early morning hours of September 2, 2016, a serious car accident took place in front of the Riverside Inn in Bracebridge, Ontario.

The driver in question, Brandon Greavette, was in a pick-up truck which left the roadway, knocked down a light standard, and damaged vehicles in the parking lot of the Riverside Inn before coming to a stop on top of the dislodged light standard. The airbags of his truck were set off by the impact. One of the front wheels of a small sedan were knocked off the car and the axle and suspension unit were found lying on the roadway.

Greavette, 26 years of age, only suffered minor cuts to his face as a result of the collision. He admitted to a police officer at the scene that he had been the driver of the pick-up truck and that he had been drinking. He had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, an inability to focus, and an odour of alcohol on his breath and body. He had trouble balancing and stumbled on his way to the police car. Greavette provided two breath samples into a breathalyzer and was arrested at the scene. His readings were 140 and 130 mg of alcohol in 100 mg of blood.

Greavette was convicted of Over 80 driving following his trial on October 19, 2017 and Justice David Rose provided reasons for sentencing on January 10, 2018.


If an accused pleads guilty or is found guilty at trial, the Court must then determine a sentence that is fair given all of the circumstances, the seriousness of the offence, and the offender’s degree of responsibility.

The Court may increase or decrease a sentence when reviewing all of the aggravating and mitigating factors relating to the offender and the offence.

An aggravating factor is something that can serve to increase the sentence, for example the offender’s criminal record. A mitigating factor is something that can serve to decrease the sentence, such as a good work history which can indicate good character.

Under section 718 of the Criminal Code, Canadian courts must impose just sentences that have one or more of the following objectives:

  • denounce the unlawful conduct and harm to the victim or the community;
  • deter the offender and others from committing crimes;
  • separate offenders from society, when necessary;
  • rehabilitate the offender;
  • provide reparations for harm done to the victim or the community; and
  • promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done.


In making his sentencing decision, Justice Rose took into account various factors including rehabilitation, Greavette’s degree of responsibility, the fact that he was a first-time offender, and deterrence.

The mitigating factors in this case included the fact that Greavette is a relatively youthful first-time offender who has a supportive family and a good job. However, Justice Rose noted that this was tempered by the fact that Greavette continues to abuse alcohol socially which leads to assaultive behaviour.

In addition, although Greavette has no prior criminal record, the Court noted that he had several driving-related offences (i.e. Provincial Offences Act violations) on file which included four speeding tickets, tailgating, failing to stop at a signal or crosswalk, and careless driving. He had also been ticketed in 2016 for consumption of alcohol in public. These were aggravating factors.

In addition to Greavette’s problematic-driving record, additional aggravating factors included the troubling damage from the collision (including damage to the two vehicles, property damage to the light fixture, and damage to other vehicles in the parking lot at the Riverside Inn).

Justice Rose also noted that there were 6 individuals who walked away from the accident virtually and miraculously unharmed. He emphasized the devastating consequences that drunk drivers have on Canadian society and went on to cite various cases which reiterate that drinking and driving offences are serious crimes and must be treated this way by the courts.

Given all of the above these factors, Justice Rose held that this case calls for a deterrent sentence.

The Pre-Sentence Report “supports the finding that Mr. Greavette accepts responsibility for this offence but has not yet understood that when he drinks bad things happen”.

Justice Rose wrote,

After reflection I have come to the conclusion that neither a fine, nor a conditional sentence order will meet the required principals of sentencing. I do not take lightly the decision to jail a first offender, but after reflection I have determined that the sentence will be 30 days in jail.

In addition to time in jail, Greavette is to be placed on probation for 1 year following his jail sentence, must attend counselling for alcohol abuse and obey a curfew set by the probation officer. He will also undergo an 18 month driving prohibition.

If you have been charged with a driving 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 have a 24-hour phone service for your convenience.

Appeal Court Upholds Parents’ Conviction in Son’s Meningitis Death

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

A panel of Appeal Court judges in Alberta dismissed the appeal of a couple who were found guilty of failing to provide the necessaries of life to their 19 month old son, who died of meningitis in 2012.


In 2016, David and Collet Stephan were convicted by a jury for failing to provide the necessaries of life in their son Ezekiel’s 2012 death. They had treated their son with natural remedies rather than taking him to a doctor when he had become ill.

A panel of Appeal Court judges in Alberta dismissed the appeal. Justice Bruce McDonald, writing for the majority, wrote,

This evidence supports the conclusion that they actively failed to do what a reasonably prudent and ordinary parent would do.

During the trial, jurors heard evidence that the Stephans used natural remedies and homemade smoothies containing hot pepper, ginger root, horseradish and onion rather than seek medical care. Ezekiel became too stiff to sit in his car seat and had to lie on a mattress when his father drove him from his home to a naturopathic clinic to pick up additional herbal supplements.

The Stephans did not call for medical assistance until their son stopped breathing. He was then rushed to a local hospital, but died after being transported by air ambulance to a Children’s Hospital in Calgary.


According to the Stephans’ lawyers, the trial was a “battle of experts”. The Stephans argued that the convictions should be overturned because the trial judge erred in allowing too many Crown experts to testify, the medical jargon confused jurors, and the defence expert’s testimony was restricted. The majority of the Appeal Court dismissed all grounds of appeal.

The Stephans’ lawyers also argued that their clients’ Charter rights had been violated because of the unreasonable delay between the time they were charged to the date they were convicted. This aspect of the appeal was also dismissed with the Court finding the delay was not unreasonable.


Justice Brian O’Ferrall wrote a dissenting opinion in favour of a new trial. He felt that the trial judge’s charge to the jury was confusing and misleading. Justice O’Ferrall did, however, agree with the majority of the Court in finding that the Stephans’ right to be tried within a reasonable time had not been infringed.


David Stephan was sentenced to four months in jail and his wife, Collet, was sentenced to three months of house arrest. They were both ordered to complete 240 hours of community service. The trial Judge also ordered that the Stephans’ three other children see a medical doctor at least once a year.


Given that one of the three judges on the appeal panel dissented, the Stephans have an automatic right to have the Supreme Court of Canada hear arguments in their case. The Supreme Court has set a tentative date to hear arguments on May 15, 2018 for the couple.

The Crown prosecutors have filed their own appeal where they will argue that the couple should face stiffer sentences before another panel of Court of Appeal judges. A date for these arguments has not yet been set.


The Criminal Code of Canada requires that every parent, foster parent, or guardian is required to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of 16 years of age.

A parent is responsible for the care, supervision, maintenance and support of his/her children. At a minimum, this obligation entails the provision of food and shelter. The Courts have also found that the failure to seek medical attention can be categorized as a “failure to provide the necessaries of life”.

The prosecution, in a case such as the Stephans, is required to prove that:

  1. The accused was under a legal duty to provide the necessaries of life to a child under the age of 16 years;
  2. The accused failed to provide the necessaries of life to a child under the age of 16 years;
  3. This failure endangered the child’s life or was likely to cause the health of that child to be endangered permanently; and,
  4. The conduct of the accused represented a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable parent, foster parent, or guardian in the same circumstances.

We will continue to follow the developments in this case and will provide updates on this blog as they become available.

In the meantime, if you are facing charges or have questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. For your convenience, we offer 24-hour phone services. We are available when you need us most.