Criminal Law

First-time Shoplifters Will Not Be Charged In Toronto

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

According to Toronto Police, the number of reported shoplifting incidents are at a five year high in Toronto.  As of October 30, 2018 there were 16,667 shoplifting incidents reported.

On November 1, 2018, Toronto Police Service launched a pilot project called “Shop Theft”, allowing first-time shoplifters to avoid prosecution in two of Toronto’s busiest police divisions.

This project allows privately employed theft prevention officers to release an accused shoplifter after the details of the incident are called in to a police division. In the normal course, the accused would be held waiting for hours for police to arrive at the store in response to the low-priority calls.

WHAT IS THE “SHOP THEFT” PROJECT?

This pilot project will run for six months in divisions 51 and 52 in Toronto, which includes the area south of Bloor Street from Spadina Avenue east to the Don River.

Alleged offenders will be released for non-violent shoplifting incidents through the project as long as they meet the following criteria:

  • They must be 18 years of age or older;
  • The items they are accused of stealing must be worth less than $1,000; and
  • They must have identification.

Paul Rinkoff, a Toronto Police staff sergeant who is in charge of running the project, explains that the investigation will proceed as usual, it will just take place over the telephone. However, a police officer will attend the premises, if requested by any party involved.

Those that are apprehended through the Shop Theft project will not be charged, however, the police reserve the right to lay a charge at a later date depending on the circumstances of the crime.

In each case of shoplifting, the theft prevention officer will be required to fill out a form which will include details about the alleged occurrence and the accused. This form will then be forwarded to Toronto Police. The accused will be read their right to counsel and advised that they are being released. They will be given a notice of apprehension, which states why they were detained and specifies that a criminal summons may be obtained at a later date by the Toronto Police Service on that charge. This summons is unrelated to any civil proceedings that the store may commence against the accused.

The Shop Theft project will be reviewed 90-days following its commencement and again at the end of six months to determine whether Toronto Police will implement this practice in all of its divisions.

Meaghan Gray, acting director of corporate communications for the Toronto Police Service, states:

What we’ve been trying to do through the modernization process is make sure that our police officers are where the public needs them the most. And maybe responding to … shoplifting calls – that can be held just as efficiently by a theft prevention officer partnered with us over the phone – allows us to reassign those officers to more pressing calls for service.

WHAT IS SHOPLIFTING?

Shoplifting is the common term used when stealing something from a store and is an offence found under section 322 of the Criminal Code. Shoplifting can be categorized in two ways depending upon the value of the items stolen: theft over $5,000 or theft under $5,000.

Section 322 of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

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

The term “colour of right” refers to the person having the authority to take it. The term “converts” means to deprive someone else of their property to use for your own enjoyment.

The term “intent” in reference to shoplifting refers to the intent to take someone else’s property. The intent needs to be proven in Court beyond a reasonable doubt by the Crown prosecutor.

Shoplifting occurs when an item has been taken from a store without paying and does not occur while you are still in the store, even if the item is in your pocket.

WHAT IS THE PUNISHMENT FOR SHOPLIFTING?

Approximately 50,000 Canadians are charged with shoplifting and theft under $5,000 each year. Most shoplifters rarely attempt to steal property valued at more than $5,000. The most common items stolen include alcohol, clothing or apparel, jewelry, food, and cosmetic and beauty products.

Shoplifting is a form of theft and is therefore a serious offence, and should not be treated lightly as this offence carries with it severe penalties.

Pursuant to section 334(b) of the Criminal Code, depending on the severity of the crime, the punishment for shoplifting (theft under $5,000) is a summary offence with a maximum penalty of a fine of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment for up to 6 months. However, the Crown prosecutor may choose to proceed by way of indictment, which carries a punishment of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

If you are convicted of the crime of theft, you may also be subject to court fines and fees, damage to your reputation and career, and restrictions on travel.

Once you have been convicted of shoplifting (unless you were a minor at the time), the charge and conviction are permanently recorded on your criminal record.  The charge, arrest, and your fingerprints are all a matter of public record even if you are not convicted of the offence.  Therefore, when travelling or on some forms for your employment you will need to answer “yes” if you are asked if you have ever been arrested or charged with a crime.

If you are facing shoplifting or theft charges, or have any questions regarding your legal rights, it is recommended that you contact an experienced criminal defence lawyer. The lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP have years of experience defending clients against theft and stolen property charges. Contact our office today online or at 905-404-1947 to speak with our knowledgeable criminal defence lawyers that specialize in defending clients who face theft charges. We offer a free initial consultation for all prospective clients.

‘Sexsomnia” Defence Rejected by Ontario Judge

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

A Judge has rejected the defence of “sexsomnia” and ruled that Ryan Hartman (“Hartman”) is criminally responsible for the sexual assault of a woman despite his claim that he was sleepwalking at the time of the criminal act.

Hartman was found guilty of sexual assault in 2012 and sentenced to 14 months in jail. He appealed and lost. He appealed again and admitted to the crime, but offered new evidence claiming that he was suffering from a condition called “sexsomnia” and maintained that he was sleeping when he raped the woman.

The Ontario Court of Appeal granted Hartman a new trial. The trial began in April 2017 and concluded this week with a Judge ruling that Hartman is guilty of sexual assault.

WHAT HAPPENED?

In February 2011, the woman, whose identity is protected by a court order, was attending a house party in Spencerville, Ontario with her boyfriend. The couple fell asleep on an air mattress to sleep off all of the alcohol they had consumed before driving home.

Suddenly, the woman felt a strong pain in her buttocks. She realized that her jeans were pulled down and that someone was penetrating her anally while her boyfriend remained asleep.

Hartman gave evidence at his first trial that he crawled onto the double air mattress with a sleeping couple. When he awoke, he was alone on the air mattress with an erection and his pants were unzipped.

As the woman and her boyfriend drove away from the house party, she observed Hartman sitting at a picnic table in the garage looking wide awake.

During the trial, Hartman’s lawyer argued that his client was asleep during the sexual assault and was therefore not criminally responsible for his “involuntary” acts.

Hartman relied upon evidence provided by Dr. Julian Gojer, a forensic psychiatrist, who determined that Hartman was likely asleep during the assault. Dr. Gojer’s opinion relied upon a family history of sleepwalking and evidence from Hartman’s girlfriend who had once found Hartman masturbating beside her in bed while apparently asleep.

The Crown prosecutor relied upon affidavit evidence from a U.S. sleep expert Dr. Mark Pressman who opined that Hartman was likely awake, but drunk during the assault.

At trial, evidence before the court included the fact that Hartman had consumed as many as 21 alcoholic beverages during the party and that his blood-alcohol level was estimated to be three to four times the legal limit.

Judge Kimberly Moore rejected Hartman’s defence of sexsomnia and ruled that Hartman was “awake and aware” and his “actions were not involuntary” when he pulled down the victim’s pants and anally penetrated the woman without her consent.

 WHAT IS SEXSOMNIA?

Sexsomnia is a type of parasomnia, an abnormal activity that occurs while an individual is asleep. It is a sleep disorder that causes individuals to engage in sexual behaviour while asleep.

Sexsomnia is similar to sleepwalking and occurs during non-rapid eye movement sleep. Most individuals are experiencing such a deep sleep that they will not even remember that the event occurred the following day.

Sexsomnia was added to the DSM-5 in 2013, the American Psychiatric Association’s relied upon classification of mental disorders.

WHAT IS THE DEFENCE OF SEXSOMNIA?

In Canada, sexsomnia has been raised by defence lawyers as a legal defence in at least a dozen criminal cases since 2005. The defence of sexsomnia has resulted in a “not criminally responsible” ruling five times.

A 2003 incident that occurred in Toronto set the precedent for the sexsomnia defence in Canada when Jan Luedecke was found not criminally responsible after being accused of sexually assaulting a woman at a party by the Ontario Court of Appeal.  In 2009, Luedecke was granted an absolute discharge by the Ontario Review Board based upon two risk assessments by a forensic psychiatrist and a forensic psychologist. He was found not to pose a significant threat to public safety.

In another case, a man from Blue Mountain, Ontario was found not criminally responsible for the sexual touching of a young girl as a result of sexsomnia in February 2015. In June 2016, the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court ordered a new trial for a man convicted of sexually touching his younger sister on the basis of a sexsomnia defence.

Sexsomnia is a difficult defence as it requires a great deal of medical evidence, including expert testimony.

The victim of Hartman’s assault maintains that the assault has changed her life, her sexual relationships, her personal relationships, and her career path. Hartman will be sentenced on November 30, 2018.

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 offer a 24-hour phone service to protect your rights and to ensure that you have access to justice at all times.  We are available when you need us most.

 

 

 

 

 

Woman Found Not Criminally Responsible in Fatal PATH Stabbing

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Rohinie Bisesar (“Bisesar”), accused of fatally stabbing 28-year-old Rosemarie Junor (“Junor”) in a Shoppers Drug Mart in Toronto’s underground PATH system in 2015, has been found not criminally responsible.

Bisesar pleaded not guilty last week to the first-degree murder charge. Bisesar’s lawyers maintained that she was not criminally responsible due to her mental illness. Her trial was held before a judge only.

Ontario Superior Court Justice John McMahon ruled that he was satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that Bisesar, who suffered from schizophrenia, “was incapable of knowing the killing was morally and legally wrong”.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On December 11, 2015, while shopping at a make-up counter beneath Bay and Wellington streets, Junor was fatally stabbed. She was taken by ambulance to hospital where she succumbed to her injuries.

The unprovoked attack took a mere 54 seconds and was recorded on the store’s surveillance video. Bisesar walked into the pharmacy and stabbed Junor once in the heart with a small knife purchased at a dollar store. She did not speak to Junor during the attack, placed the knife on the counter following the stabbing, and immediately left the store.

According to Bisesar’s lawyers, she was experiencing hallucinations that took control of her physically. A forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Ian Swayze, the only witness at the trial, gave evidence that at the time of the incident Bisesar was experiencing a psychiatric breakdown due to untreated schizophrenia.

According to Dr. Swayze’s report, Bisesar was hearing voices in her head. The voice commanded her to buy a knife, and walk into the Shoppers Drug Mart. Dr. Swayze wrote that “The voice and movements raised my hand, pushed forward … it was like the knife was sticking to my hand and couldn’t be dropped.”

As a result of the not criminally responsible verdict, Bisesar remains in a secure wing of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto until an Ontario Review Board hearing is held.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE?

According to section 16 of the Criminal Code, a person is not criminally responsible for something that he/she did if they were 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.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT FOR BISESAR?

Bisesar’s release is controlled by the Ontario Review Board (“Board”). This is an independent tribunal that oversees and annually reviews every person found to be not criminally responsible or unfit to stand trial for criminal offences due to a mental health condition.

The Board consists of a five person panel, which includes a psychiatrist, a lawyer, a mental health professional, a member of the public, and a Chairperson.  The Chairperson must either be a practicing or retired judge or someone who can be appointed to a judicial office (i.e. a lawyer who has 10 years of experience).  All members of the Board are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor.

The Board hears evidence from the individual and his/her lawyer, the Crown prosecutor, a psychiatrist, and possibly others that may include a family member or other specialist. The hospital facility also provides a report to the Board detailing the individual’s history and progress.

The Board’s decisions are made by a majority vote. The most important concern of the Board is whether the individual poses a significant risk to the safety of the public. If the individual is found to be a significant risk, the Board will consider other factors. The most important being the protection of public from dangerous persons, the re-integration of the person into society, and the liberty interests of the person.

The Board reviews the disposition annually to determine whether changes need to be made depending on the progress made by the individual. The Board can make one of three dispositions:

  • Detention Order: The individual should continue to be detained in the hospital and makes a decision regarding whether the individual stays at a minimum, medium or maximum secure unit and what access the individual would have to the community;
  • Conditional Discharge: The individual is allowed to live in the community while subject to certain requirements (i.e. having to report to a hospital, refrain from using alcohol or drugs, reporting any change in address, or refrain from contact with certain individual); or
  • Absolute Discharge: The individual is granted a full release with no further supervision.

Victims can provide victim impact statements at the annual Board hearings. The statements do not have an impact on the decision the Board makes, unlike at a sentencing hearing. The Board’s decision must be based on the individual’s current level of risk to public safety.

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.

Sextortion Crimes in Canada

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Sextortion in Canada is on the rise. The RCMP have been investigating 24 incidents of sextortion since May, 2018.

Sextortion is a form of exploitation that involves the threat of releasing shared intimate videos, images, or explicit messages online.

Experts have found a spike in reported online sextortion cases involving teenage boys. According to the Canadian Centre for Child Protection (a national charity dedicated to the personal safety and protection of children), 65 boys reported incidents to Cybertip.ca in 2015-2016, an 89% increase from the previous two-year period. Reports made by girls in 2015-2016 increased by 66% from the previous two-year period.

Boys, usually between the ages of 13 to 15, are targeted through a social media website by strangers who show a romantic interest. The perpetrator then sends a pre-recorded video of a young girl and solicits the teen boy to reciprocate by sending sexually explicit images or videos of themselves. When the perpetrator has the explicit material, the boy is led to believe that the images or video will not be shared with the public as long as cash is delivered.

RECENT ARREST FOR SEXTORTION

In Manitoba, a 22-year-old woman met a 25-year-old man on Tinder (no names have been disclosed due to privacy concerns). The two began chatting online, and then went on a couple of dates over a two week period of time. The man received “sensitive images” of the woman that were consensual.

The woman reported to police that there were occasions when the man would rip off her clothes and take pictures of her, without her consent.

The woman later found videos that the man took without her consent of occasions where he was “taking advantage of her in his truck”.

The woman refused to see the man again, at which point he began to threaten her. The man claimed that if she did not come over, he would send the videos and photographs to her work.

In a text message, the man wrote “It’s called f-ing leverage. It’s called blackmail. … If you are not here by 9:30 by yourself then all the videos go out. There is no if’s and or butts.”

The woman reported the blackmail to the police, and the RCMP proceeded to obtain a search warrant and attended at the man’s home on March 20, 2018. At that time, they proceeded to seize all electronics (laptop, Xbox one, and two iPhones), along with 15 other items.

The man has been charged with extortion, voyeurism, and indecent phone calls. He has also been charged with “sextortion”, a newly added crime in the Criminal Code (section 162.1), referencing someone who distributes an intimate image of someone without that person’s consent.

The man is awaiting his court date, but a protection order has been grant requiring the man to stay at least 100 metres away from the woman until 2020.

RCMP WARNINGS

RCMP are warning the public of various types of sextortion scenarios that they have been investigating.

One scenario occurs where a victim receives unsolicited friend requests on social media or a pornographic website and an online relationship develops. The relationship builds and the victim is encouraged and coerced to use his/her computer’s camera to perform a sexual act on camera. The victim later learns that this event was recorded and is threatened to make a payment or the video will be released.

Another scheme occurs when a victim receives an email advising that someone has infiltrated their computer and knows that they have been visiting a pornographic website. The hacker provides the victim’s password in the email and reveals that they have a sexually explicit recording of the victim. Then a demand for payment is made, usually in the form of Bitcoins.

In all of these scenarios, the victims are threatened with the release of intimate videos or images if a payment, in the form of a money transfer or Bitcoin, is not received.

TIPS TO PREVENT SEXTORTION

The following are some recommendations to protect yourself from becoming a victim of sextortion:

  1. Do not accept friend requests from unknown individuals on social media;
  2. Do not talk to people online who you do not know;
  3. Do not perform an illicit act over the internet;
  4. Disable your webcam or any other camera connected to the internet when you are not using it;
  5. Do not open attachments from individuals you do not know;
  6. Do not share explicit videos and/or photographs with anyone;
  7. Parents should review and approve all applications downloaded to their children’s electronic devices and regularly monitor the content of all applications and social media websites used by their children;
  8. Parents should discuss internet safety with their children and reinforce the need to tell an adult if anyone threatens them or asks for sexual acts or sexually explicit images;
  9. If you have been targeted, stop communicating with the individual, save all correspondence and immediately report the incident to the police.

We will continue to follow any developments that take place in the latest sextortion case in Manitoba as it makes it way through the courts and will report on them in this blog.

In the meantime, if you are facing sextortion charges or charges related to any other sexual offence, 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.

Lawyer Convicted of Murder Granted Bail Pending Appeal

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Demitry Papasotiriou-Lanteigne (“Papasotiriou”) and his lover, Michael Ivezic (“Ivezic”), were found guilty of first degree murder in the death of Allan Lanteigne (“Lanteigne”) last June following a lengthy trial. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 25 years.

It was alleged that the Papasotiriou and Ivezic were having an affair and conspired to kill Papasotiriou’s spouse in order to access the victim’s $2 million life insurance policy. We previously blogged about this case on June 7, 2018.

Papasotiriou is appealing his conviction and alleges that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable because it was based on circumstantial evidence. The Court of Appeal has recently granted Papasotiriou bail pending his appeal.

PAPASOTIRIOU’S BAIL HISTORY

Papasotiriou was born in Greece and came to Canada at the age of 11 after his parents split up. As a young man, he attended university and law school, and was called to the Ontario Bar. He is currently 38 years old.

Papasotiriou left Canada in 2010 to live in Greece. Ivezic followed Papasotiriou to Greece and lived with him for six months in 2010, prior to returning to Canada in January of 2011. Lanteigne was killed on March 3, 2011. Ivezic returned to Greece on May 14, 2011 to live with Papasotiriou.

Papasotirou returned to Canada on November 1, 2012 to participate in litigation regarding the proceeds of his deceased spouse’s insurance policy. He was arrested the next day.

Papasotirou applied for bail in August 2013, but was denied. He re-applied in November 2013 and provided an improved plan of release to the Court. He was again denied.

On September 11, 2014, Papasotirou was discharged following a preliminary inquiry. However, the Crown immediately launched a certiorari application (a formal request to a court challenging a legal decision alleging that the decision has been irregular or there has been an error of law) and a direct indictment was ordered on October 28, 2014, at which point Papasotirou was arrested.

Papasotirou again applied for bail, which was granted. He was released on a $400,000 recognizance with his mother, sister, and stepfather acting as sureties (person who promises to a judge to supervise an accused person while they are out on bail and pledges an amount of money). He remained out on bail for 3 ½ years with no compliance issues.

At the Court of Appeal, counsel for Papasotiriou proposed a plan for release pending his client’s appeal as follows:

  • $500,000 recognizance with his mother, stepfather, and stepfather’s mother as sureties;
  • strict house arrest with very narrow exceptions; and
  • GPS ankle bracelet to be monitored by Recovery Science Corporation (funded by Papasotiriou).

GROUNDS FOR GRANTING BAIL PENDING APPEAL

Pursuant to section 679(3) of the Criminal Code, a judge of the appeal court may order an appellant released pending appeal if he/she has established the following:

  • That the appeal is not frivolous;
  • That he/she will surrender into custody in accordance with the terms of any bail order; and
  • That the detention is not necessary “in the public interest”.

The “not frivolous” test is a very low bar, and in Papasotiriou’s case the Crown did not suggest to the Court that the appeal is frivolous.

The Crown did, however, argue that Papasotiriou has not discharged his onus to surrender into custody given his ties to Greece. The Court of Appeal, rejected the Crown’s argument on this ground, and held that Papasotirou’s compliance with his pre-trial bail order was “flawless” and the use of electronic monitoring will provide an “extra layer of assurance against absconding”.

The Court stated:

I accept that, standing alone, Mr. Papasotiriou’s connections to Greece may give pause for concern. However, any lingering concerns about flight are answered by his history of bail compliance and the strict release plan that is proposed. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the applicant will surrender into custody in accordance with his bail order.

The Court of Appeal outlined that there are two components which make up the third provision (public interest) to consider in granting bail pending an appeal. These include public safety and confidence in the administration of justice. The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the provision regarding the “public interest” in the case of R. v. Oland. The judicial discretion to grant bail pending appeal involves balancing enforceability (taking into account the gravity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission, and the potential length of imprisonment) and reviewability interests (taking into account the strength of the grounds of the appeal).

The Crown conceded that Papasotiriou has proven that he will not commit offences if he is released on bail, thus discharging the onus of the public safety component. However, the Crown did take issue with maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Papasotiriou and held:

The “public interest” requires that I balance all of these factors – the circumstances of the applicant, the nature of the offence, the apparent strength of the appeal, and the time it will take to argue the appeal – to determine whether public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined by Mr. Papasotiriou’s release on bail.

The Court of Appeal maintained that Papasotiriou was not being “turned loose”, but rather carefully monitored in accordance with a stringent release plan (i.e. house arrest, GPS electronic monitoring, and the pledge of $500,000 by his sureties), which is consistent with the proper functioning of the Canadian justice system. Therefore, the Court allowed Papasotiriou’s application and granted him bail pending his appeal.

We will continue to follow any developments in this case as it makes its 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.

Crown Prosecutors Appealing Decision in Toronto Police Breach of Trust Case

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Kyle Upjohn (“Upjohn”), an officer with ten years of experience on the police force, was charged with the offence of breach of trust by a public officer contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code and following a preliminary inquiry he was committed to stand trial. Upjohn successfully brought an application to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking to quash the order committing him to stand trial.

A Crown prosecutor is appealing the decision to quash Upjohn’s criminal trial to Ontario’s highest court maintaining that the lower court Judge erred. Milan Rupic, Crown prosecutor, claims that Justice Maureen Forestall erred in failing to consider “the whole of the evidence” when considering Upjohn’s intent.

Rupic contends that Upjohn allegedly refused to help stop a young man commit suicide in High Park and should stand trial as the cop “knowingly avoided a duty of vital importance”.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On February 2, 2016, a concerned citizen reported to Upjohn, who was parked in his marked police vehicle in High Park, that a young man was preparing to hang himself in the park. Instead of coming to the aid of Alexandre Boucher (“Boucher”), Upjohn allegedly falsely claimed he was on another call and told the man to dial 911 and then drove away.

Subsequently, Upjohn was dispatched to attend to the park where Boucher, a 19-year-old, was later pronounced dead.

Initially, Upjohn was charged with criminal negligence causing death and failing to provide the necessities of life. These charges were withdrawn and Upjohn was charged with breach of trust by a public officer.

THE LOWER COURT DECISION

On application to the Superior Court of Justice, Upjohn’s lawyer argued that a breach of trust case required evidence that the accused had a dishonest or corrupt ulterior purpose for avoiding the call, and that there was no such evidence of this nature.  Justice Forestell agreed with this position and quashed Upjohn’s committal to stand trial.

THE ARGUMENTS ON APPEAL

The Crown prosecutor has filed an appeal at the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Crown argues that Justice Forestell erred in her decision to quash the trial by failing to consider the “whole of the evidence” in terms of Upjohn’s intent.

The Crown argues that the evidence supports the inference that Upjohn “knowingly avoided a duty of vital importance by means of a deceit”. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates that in avoiding his public duty, Upjohn was untrustworthy and the breach of his duty was not for the public good.

The Crown stated:

This was not an innocent mistake. Upjohn masked his failure to act with dishonesty – by lying about being “on a call”. The lie suggests that Upjohn knew what he was doing wrong, that he was intentionally using his office for a purpose other than the public good.

The appeal in this case is scheduled to be heard in November, 2018.

WHAT IS BREACH OF TRUST?

A charge of breach of trust by a public officer is laid when an official is accused of violating the standard of conduct and responsibility demanded by his/her position.

Section 122 of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.

The Supreme Court of Canada set out the elements of the offence of breach of trust by a public officer in R. v. Boulanger:

  1. The accused is an official;
  2. The accused was acting in connection with the duties of his office;
  3. The accused breached the standard of responsibility and conduct demanded of him by the nature of the office;
  4. The conduct of the accused represented a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of an individual in the accused’s position of public trust; and
  5. The accused acted with the intention to use his public office for a purpose other than the public good, for example, for a dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose.

UPJOHN’S CURRENT STATUS

Currently, Upjohn remains suspended with pay from the Toronto Police Service since May 2016.

Upjohn is also accused of three counts of professional misconduct under Ontario’s Police Services Act, including neglect of duty and acting in a disorderly manner.

Under this Act, disciplinary hearings are conducted by police services.   A hearing officer must decide whether the allegations of misconduct have been proven on clear and convincing evidence. If an officer is found guilty of misconduct, appropriate penalties may be imposed, including:

  • a reprimand;
  • a direction to undergo specific counselling, treatment or training;
  • a direction to participate in a specified program or activity;
  • forfeiture of pay or time off;
  • suspension without pay;
  • demotion; or
  • dismissal.

We will report in this blog any developments in this case as they occur, including the decision on appeal.

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 have a 24-hour phone service for your convenience. We are available when you need us most.

Court of Appeal Ordered Two Jail Guards to Stand Trial for their Role in Inmate’s Death

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

On March 5, 2014, corrections officers, Leslie Lonsbary (“Lonsbary”) and Stephen Jurkus (“Jurkus”), were charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life following the death of inmate, Adam Kargus (“Kargus”).

Kargus was beaten by his cellmate at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre (“EMDC”) and was found dead in a jailhouse shower stall on November 1, 2013.  Anthony George pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison (with no possibility of parole for 10 years) last year for beating Kargus to death.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has recently reversed an earlier decision made by Justice A.K. Mitchell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.   At that time, charges against the two guards were dismissed as a result of too much time having passed since they were charged.

LOWER COURT DECISION

At the time of Kargus’ beating and subsequent death, Lonsbary and Jurkus were both employed by the Ministry of Correctional Services at EMDC and on duty.

Following a four month investigation by police, the two men were arrested and charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life to Kargus thereby endangering his life contrary to section 215(1)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

In February, 2017, Lonsbary and Jurkus brought an application before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice arguing that their constitutional rights had been infringed due to the delay in bringing their case to trial.

A three week jury trial was scheduled to commence on May 8, 2017. The guards submitted that the delay from arrest to the expected completion date of trial would be 1,178 days or 39.3 months. They attributed the delay to the Crown prosecutor and the court.

Applying the formula for delay as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) in the R. v. Jordan (“Jordan”) decision, the lower Court found that the accuseds’ right to be tried within a reasonable period of time was breached. The Court stayed the charges against Lonsbary and Jurkus as the case against them had surpassed the 30-month time limit for trials as set out in the Jordan decision.

WHY IS THE JORDAN DECISION RELEVANT TO THIS CASE?

We have previously blogged about access to justice issues and, more specifically, the commonly criticized length of time it takes for a case to get to trial. The SCC in 2016 set strict time limits for the completion of criminal cases, where there are no exceptional circumstances.

The SCC released its decision in R. v. Jordan on July 8, 2016. In this case, the accused had faced several delays while awaiting his preliminary inquiry and trial. Jordan was eventually convicted of five drug-related offences after 49.5 months. At the beginning of his trial, Jordan brought an application requesting a stay of proceedings due to his constitutional rights being infringed by an unreasonable delay. His application was dismissed. Jordan’s appeal to the Supreme Court of British Columbia was also dismissed.

Jordan proceeded to appeal to the SCC. His appeal was granted, his convictions were set aside and the proceedings were stayed. In this decision, the SCC clearly set out a formula to calculate the amount of time between the initial charge and the actual or anticipated end of trial. The SCC set a ceiling for unreasonable delays at 18 months for cases tried in provincial courts and 30 months for cases to be tried in provincial and superior courts after a preliminary inquiry, except under exceptional circumstances that were reasonably unforeseen or unavoidable.

ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL

Crown prosecutors appealed the lower court decision to stay proceedings against Lonsbary and Jurkus to the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”). The Crown argued that the lower court Judge made errors in applying the time frame rules.

According to Justice Fairburn, writing on behalf of the ONCA, delays that were caused by the defence or by “exceptional circumstances” (which can include specific incidents or the general complexity of the case) do not count toward the 30-month ceiling for criminal proceedings.

In conclusion, the ONCA found that there was “no unreasonable delay” and ordered Lonsbary and Jurkus to stand trial.

The two jail guards have the right to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling. We will continue to follow this case and report on any developments as they take place in this blog.

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 have a 24-hour phone service for your convenience. We are available when you need us most.

Supreme Court Upholds First Degree Murder Convictions for Death of 6-Year-Old

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has upheld the first-degree murder convictions of Spencer Jordan (“Jordan”) and Marie Magoon (“Magoon”), who were charged in the death of six-year-old Meika Jordan (“Meika”).

Defence lawyers requested that the SCC reverse a decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal, which upgraded Jordan and Magoon’s second-degree murder convictions after ruling that Meika had been confined prior to her death (a condition that automatically increases the severity of a murder offence).

Under the original second-degree murder convictions, Jordan and Magoon had been sentenced to life in prison without parole for a minimum of 17 years. The upgraded first-degree murder convictions carry an automatic life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On November 14, 2011, Meika died after spending the weekend at the home of her father, Jordan, and stepmother, Magoon. The six-year-old was tortured for days leading up to her death by being forced to run stairs, dragged up and down the stairs by her ankles, repeatedly hit and even burned. She suffered damage to her internal organs and a subdural hematoma and cerebral swelling caused by at least five blows to her head. No medical attention was sought until Meika was in complete cardiac and respiratory failure. Jordan and Magoon told police that Meika had fallen down the stairs, however, the medical evidence supported a pattern of frequent and intentional violence.

Jordan and Magoon were charged with first degree murder and convicted of second degree murder at trial in 2015. They appealed their convictions and the Crown prosecutors appealed the first degree murder acquittals. The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the accuseds’ appeals, but allowed the Crown appeals. The Appeal Court held that the accused unlawfully confined Meika rendering them liable for first degree murder under section 231(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada (“CC”).

The SCC refused to hear an appeal to have the convictions entirely quashed, but did hear arguments on the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision to upgrade the charge from second-degree murder to first-degree murder.

The nine SCC justices took less than 10 minutes to come to the decision to dismiss all appeals in November, 2017. The SCC found that the Court of Appeal did not err in substituting verdicts of guilty of murder in the first degree. The written reasons for the ruling were released on April 13, 2018.

MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE

The crime of murder is deemed as the most vicious of crimes in Canadian society. This is reflected in the harshness of the sanctions and punishments for this crime.

In Canada, there are two divisions of murder and one of manslaughter. First degree murder is planned and deliberate (with a few exceptions), whereas second degree murder is defined as murder that is not first degree (not premeditated). Manslaughter is defined as a homicide committed without the intention to cause death.

First degree murder bears an automatic life sentence with no possibility of parole for 25 years. Once on parole, offenders remain on parole for the rest of their life and must report to a parole officer and are subject to conditions of their parole. If any of the conditions of parole are broken, they are sent directly back to prison without a hearing.

WHAT IS FIRST DEGREE MURDER UNDER SECTION 231(5) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE?

There are some homicides automatically deemed first degree murder, even if they were not intentional or planned. These include assassination of a police officer or prison employee on duty (section 231(4) of the CC) or murder committed in conjunction with one of the following offences (section 231 (5) of the CC):

  • hijacking;
  • sexual assault;
  • sexual assault with a weapon;
  • aggravated sexual assault;
  • kidnapping;
  • forcible confinement;
  • hostage taking;
  • terrorism;
  • intimidation;
  • criminal harassment; or
  • any offence committed on behalf of a criminal organization.

The section of the CC that was applied in Meika’s case was section 231(5)(e), which reads as follows:

(5)       Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder in respect of a person when the death is caused by that person while committing or attempting to commit an offence under one of the following sections:

            (e) section 279 (kidnapping and forcible confinement);

The case of R. v. Pritchard explained Parliament’s intention to “treat murders committed in connection with crimes of domination as particularly blameworthy and deserving of more severe punishment”.

The applicable test to be applied in determining guilt of first degree murder under section 231(5)(e) of the CC was set out in R. v. Harbottle. The Crown must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that:

  1. the accused was guilty of the underlying crime of domination or of attempting to commit that crime;
  2. the accused was guilty of the murder of the victim;
  3. the accused participated in the murder in such a manner that he/she was a substantial cause of the death of the victim;
  4. there was no intervening act of another which resulted in the accused no longer being substantially connected to the death of the victim; and
  5. the crimes of domination and murder were part of the same transaction.

In Meika’s case, the SCC found that although there were no physical restraints used, Meika was physically restrained and restricted to remain in her bedroom or the basement. Furthermore, given the parent child relationship there is less of a requirement for physical restraints due to the unequal relationship that exists. “[D]isciplining a child by restricting his or her ability to move about freely (by physical or psychological means), contrary to the child’s wishes, which exceeds the outer bounds of punishment that a parent or guardian could lawfully administer, constitutes unlawful confinement.” Therefore, the SCC found that the Harbottle test was met.

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.

Major Changes Proposed to Unclog Canada’s Criminal Courts

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Last week, the Liberal government proposed a new bill, Bill C-75, to modernize Canada’s criminal justice system and speed up court proceedings by amending the Criminal Code, Youth Criminal Justice Act and other laws. The changes include eliminating preliminary inquiries (except in cases of crimes that carry a life sentence), ending peremptory challenges in jury selection, addressing intimate partner violence, creating a higher threshold for bail and increasing sentences for repeat offenders.

Federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould said the new bill aims “to make our criminal justice system more effective and efficient while respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. More importantly, it will make a significant contribution to a necessary culture shift in the way our criminal justice system operates.”

Here are some of the highlights from Bill C-75:

PRELIMINARY INQUIRIES

One of the most controversial features of Bill C-75 is the proposal to eliminate preliminary inquiries in the majority of criminal proceedings.

A preliminary inquiry is an optional hearing requested by either the accused or the Crown prosecutor. It is available where an adult is charged with an indictable offence and elects to be tried by the Superior Court. Preliminary inquiries determine if there is enough evidence to send the accused to trial. It is a process by which the Crown and the accused test the evidence to be used at trial.

Under the proposed legislation, only an adult accused of a crime punishable by life imprisonment would be able to request a preliminary inquiry. The preliminary inquiry judge would also be able to limit the issues to be considered and the witnesses.

The government justifies this proposal claiming that it will reduce the number of preliminary inquiries, thus freeing up court time and reducing the burden on some witnesses and victims. Specifically, this would protect sexual assault victims from having to testify twice – once at the preliminary inquiry stage and once at the trial.

This proposal will eliminate the number of preliminary inquiries by 87%. There are currently more than 9,000 preliminary inquiries held each year.

Many criminal defence lawyers oppose this proposal. They take the position that the preliminary inquiry process can eliminate cases that do not have enough evidence to proceed to trial. Furthermore, preliminary inquiries can save a lot of time down the road by narrowing issues, shortening trials and sometimes even eliminating the need for trials.

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

Under the proposed legislation, the more inclusive “intimate partner” wording would replace “spouse” and “common-law partner” and the definition would be broadened to include past partners.

Bill C-75 also introduces a reverse onus imposed at the bail hearing of an accused charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence and repeat abusers (rather than placing the onus on the Crown to make a case for keeping the accused incarcerated).

The new legislation would make strangulation an elevated form of assault (in conjunction with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm) and allows a higher maximum penalty in cases involving repeat domestic abusers.

BAIL

Bill C-75 proposes to update and modernize bail practices by allowing police and judges more flexibility to deal with criminal charges.   Police would be given the authority to impose appropriate conditions on accused individuals without having to seek court approval.

JURY SELECTION

The impetus to rework the jury selection process in Bill C-75 comes in response to the public’s reaction to the acquittal of Gerald Stanley, which we have previously blogged about. In this case, an all-white jury found Gerald Stanley not guilty in the shooting death of Colten Boushie, a young Indigenous man.

The government proposes to improve the jury selection process and seeks to encourage diversity by abolishing peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges allow defence counsel or Crown prosecutors to exclude a potential juror without giving a reason. The government maintains that ending peremptory challenges will prevent counsel from excluding minority candidates from juries. The proposed legislation will allow judges to decide whether to exclude jurors that have been challenged by either the prosecution or defence.

Bill C-75 still needs to be debated and approved before becoming law.  We will continue to provide updates regarding the status of this Bill as it becomes available.

In the meantime, if you have questions regarding charges laid against you or your legal rights, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison at 905-404-1947 or contact us online. We offer a free consultation and are available to help you 24/7.

Two Ontario Cases Fall Apart As a Result of Police Failure to Immediately Inform of Right to Counsel

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

The Ontario Court of Justice has recently excluded significant evidence in two criminal cases involving impaired driving after ruling that police had violated the accuseds’ Charter rights by failing to immediately inform them of their right to counsel.

In the first case, Justice Craig Parry excluded breath samples from the driver’s trial due to a Charter breach, which resulted in a charge of driving with a blood-alcohol content above the legal limit to be dismissed.

In another case earlier this month, a man was found not guilty of having care or control of a vehicle while impaired by a drug when Justice Scott Latimer threw out the evidence after ruling that police had violated his Charter rights.

RIGHT TO COUNSEL

The right to counsel is a fundamental right included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”).

10.  Everyone has the right on arrest or detention:

b.  to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right;

Under the Charter, the detainee must be informed of the right to retain and instruct counsel “without delay”, which has been interpreted to mean “immediately”. The Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear in the case of R. v. Suberu that avoiding delay helps to protect against the risk of self-incrimination and interference with an individual’s liberty. This obligation also requires police to abstain from obtaining incriminatory evidence from the detainee until he/she has had a reasonable chance to contact a lawyer, or the detainee has unequivocally waived the right to do so.

The police have both an informational duty and an implementational duty upon arrest or detention. The police must both inform the accused of the right to retain counsel and must provide the detainee with a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct counsel. Justice Abella, speaking for the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of R. v. Taylor, stated:

The duty to inform a detained person of his or her right to counsel arises ”immediately” upon arrest or detention (Suberu, at paras 41-42) and the duty to facilitate access to a lawyer, in turn, arises immediately upon the detainee’s request to speak to counsel. The arresting officer is therefore under a constitutional obligation to facilitate the requested access to counsel at the first reasonably available opportunity. The burden is on the Crown to show that a given delay was reasonable in the circumstances.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CASE OF COLIN MITCHELL?

On October 9, 2016, a report was received by police of a possible impaired driver exiting Highway 401 at Highway 8. Constable Karen Marquis received the dispatch and pulled over the vehicle that Colin Mitchell (“Mitchell”) was driving. Mitchell failed a breathalyzer test and was then arrested. The officer waited 11 minutes after the arrest to read Mitchell his rights to counsel. In the back of the police cruiser Mitchell told the officer that he wanted to call a lawyer. He was not allowed to make the call until he arrived at the police station. Mitchell was finally given the chance to make a phone call to duty counsel 51 minutes after being placed under arrest.

On February 22, 2018, Justice Parry found that the officer breached her obligation to inform Mitchell of his right to counsel without delay and breached her implementational duty to facilitate access to counsel at the first reasonable opportunity. Justice Parry concluded that the evidence gathered in this case (the breath samples) was evidence that was attained in a manner that infringed the accused’s right to counsel. Justice Parry stated,

Exclusion of the evidence is the only remedy that can, in these circumstances, prevent bringing the administration of justice into further disrepute. To do otherwise would be to condone a perpetual indifference to the knowledge of the basic obligations created by one of the most important Charter rights.

Justice Parry, therefore, excluded the results of the breathalyzer test due to the delay in informing Mitchell of his right to counsel. The charge of driving with more than the legal limit of alcohol in his blood was dismissed.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CASE OF ANDREW DAVIS?

On July 17, 2016, a civilian reported a case of bad driving to the Waterloo Regional Police. Constable Tyler Shipp located the vehicle in question in a parking lot in Waterloo and Andrew Davis (“Davis”) was found in the driver’s seat. The officer spoke to Davis through an open window. Davis had sunglasses on, no shirt and was slightly dishevelled. Davis’ speech was described by the officer as garbled. The officer directed Davis to remove his sunglasses and observed Davis’ eyes to be “swollen, half open, very drowsy”.  Another officer, Constable McKenna, arrived on scene to administer a Standard Field Sobriety Test.

Following the sobriety test, Davis was arrested, handcuffed and placed in the back of the police cruiser. Drug paraphernalia, prescription drugs and what the officer thought was a meth pipe were located inside Davis’ vehicle. Eight minutes after his arrest, Davis was read his rights to counsel by police. These rights should have been read immediately following his arrest.

On March 6, 2018, Justice Latimer held that a violation of section 10(b) of the Charter occurred as a result of the police failure to provide Davis with his rights to counsel without delay upon arrest. Due to the Charter violation, Justice Latimer excluded important evidence, including all of the items seized from Davis’ vehicle and his post-arrest statement made to the police. Justice Latimer concluded that the Crown had failed to prove that Davis was impaired by a drug at the time of his care or control of his motor vehicle.

If you have been charged with impaired driving or any other driving offence, contact one of the experienced Oshawa criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP for a free consultation. We have a 24-hour phone service for your convenience. Contact our office online or at 905-404-1947.