Legislation

Police Services Launch Project ERASE to Target Dangerous Drivers

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

On May 10, 2019, Durham Regional Police, OPP and police services across Ontario launched their annual campaign “Project E.R.A.S.E.” to eliminate street racing from our roadways. 

The operation utilizes police in the air and on the ground to stop dangerous driving that endangers the safety of the participants, spectators and other innocent vehicles on the streets.

WHAT IS PROJECT ERASE?

ERASE stands for “Eliminate Racing Activity on Streets Everywhere”.  This campaign started in 1996 and includes 22 police services (some of which include York, Durham, Peel, Halton, South Simcoe, Barrie, Waterloo and Toronto), the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Transportation.  These police forces work together and provide resources such as planes, helicopters, unmarked vehicles and specially trained officers aimed at cracking down on street racing, stunt and aggressive driving in Ontario.

High speeds on our roadways is extremely dangerous.  Driving in this manner makes it difficult to stop safely if there is an emergency, if a car pulls out in front of the driver, or if a child runs into the roadway. 

Excessive speed was directly related to 10,000 motor vehicle collisions on OPP-patrolled roads last year alone.  In 2018, OPP laid a total of 5770 street racing charges.   According to the OPP, there have been more than 750 stunt driving charges laid in the Greater Toronto Area this year.

York Regional Police Insp. Ed Villamere stated:

Our mission is to change aggressive driving behaviour through education, awareness and strict enforcement of both the Highway Traffic Act and the Criminal Code of Canada. … If you are hooked on street racing, rest assured you will be hooked up in handcuffs, your car will be hooked up and impounded, and your driver’s licence will be suspended.

WHAT IS STREET RACING AND STUNT DRIVING?

Street racing is illegal and is defined under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act (section 172(1)):

No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager.

A regulation entitled “Races, Contests and Stunts” found in the Highway Traffic Act provides a list of behaviours that can encompass “stunt driving”.  Such behaviours that violate the law may include:

  • Exceeding the speed limit by 50 km/h or more;
  • Causing a vehicle to spin or circle;
  • Causing one or more wheels of a vehicle to leave the ground;
  • Driving without due care or attention;
  • Preventing another vehicle from passing;
  • Two or more vehicles driving side-by-side where at least one of the vehicles occupies a lane intended for oncoming traffic;
  • High speeds decreasing a driver’s ability to react to pedestrians and other motorists;
  • Loss of control of a vehicle because of speed or unsafe maneuvers;
  • Rollover hazards.

Unlike a typical speeding ticket, if you are charged with street racing or stunt driving, you will be subject to a 7 day administrative driving suspension, a 7 day vehicle impound and impound fees. 

If you are convicted of these offences, pursuant to section 172(2) of the Highway Traffic Act, there are even more severe penalties, which may include:

  • A fine ranging from $2,000 to $10,000; and/or
  • Imprisonment for a term of not more than six months; and
  • A driving suspension, which can last up to 10 years in some cases.

The consequences of street racing and stunt driving become even more serious if charges of careless driving or careless driving causing bodily harm or death are involved. 

If a driver is convicted of careless driving, he/she will face a fine of up to $2,000, six demerit points, and/or a jail term of six months, and a licence suspension of up to two years.

If a driver is convicted of careless driving causing bodily harm or death, he/she will face a fine of no less than $2,000 to the maximum of $50,000, six demerit points, and/or imprisonment up to two years, and a licence suspension of up to five years.

STREET RACES AND SOCIAL MEDIA

Some drivers communicate and coordinate illegal activities, such as street racing, through social media. 

OPP Supt. Tony Cristilli advises:

They run so-called qualifying races in municipalities around the GTA and often hold final races on our 400 series highways patrolled by the OPP.  Take it to the race track where it belongs.

Police are encouraging the public to report any information regarding street racing activity or videos found on social media of street racing or dangerous driving behaviours in Ontario.

According to OPP Supt. Tony Cristilli:

There are different forms of communication these days and social media is definitely one platform that’s used to communicate these activities.  Obviously that reaches a broad spectrum of people that are out there that’s on social media who could easily advise the police.

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

B.C. Judge Finds Provocation Defence Unconstitutional

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

A British Columbia Supreme Court judge has ruled that a 2015 amendment to the Criminal Code, which limits when an accused killer can use the defence of provocation, is unconstitutional.

Justice Douglas Thompson ruled that the amendment in question only allowed for the partial defence of provocation in murder cases if the victim committed an indictable offence (most serious of offences) punishable by a sentence of five or more years, which is contrary to the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter.

THE DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION

Stephen Harper’s Conservative government amended the definition of provocation prior to the 2015 election through the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act.

This legislation changed the definition of provocation from “a wrongful act or an insult that is of such nature as to be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control …if the accused acted on it on the sudden and before there was time for his passion to cool” to “conduct of the victim that would constitute an indictable offence …punishable by five or more years of imprisonment and that is of such a nature as to be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control is provocation for the purposes of this section, if the accused acted on it on the sudden and before there was time for their passion to cool”.

The intention of the government in amending the law was that a victim had to have committed a crime so serious against an accused to argue that the accused was provoked into killing, not merely upset by the victim.  However, Justice Thompson found that the law as it was written denied vulnerable victims of domestic abuse and racism the ability to claim provocation when they are incited to respond violently by behaviour that is not quite criminal. 

Justice Thompson wrote in his ruling:

It is an unfortunate but notorious fact that people of colour and members of other marginalized communities are sometimes subject to despicable and hateful rhetoric, and that women are sometimes subject to intense psychological abuse by their male partners. … Although the provoking behaviour does not constitute an indictable offence punishable by at least five years’ imprisonment, it is reasonably foreseeable that the targets of this conduct may respond violently.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Michael Philip Simard (“Simard”) was in an “on again, off again” relationship with Leanne Larocque since 2014.  On October 5, 2016, Simard, armed with an assault rifle, entered the home of Larocque and proceeded to kill her and Gordon Turner.   Simard called 911 and then proceeded to shoot himself before the police arrived.

Simard was charged with two counts of second-degree murder. 

Michael Philip Simard challenged the constitutionality of amendments to section 232(2) of the Criminal Code arguing that the wording infringed his section 7 rights to life, liberty and security of person under the Charter, preventing him from raising a partial defence to reduce his charges of second-degree murder to manslaughter.

Justice Thompson agreed with Simard’s Charter arguments and found that the section in question in the Criminal Code to be overly broad and arbitrary.  Justice Thompson stated in his ruling:

…it is clear that s. 232(2) engages s. 7 of the Charter.  Second-degree murder carries a mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison.  On the other hand, manslaughter has no mandatory minimum sentence (unless a firearm is used in the commission of the offence…).  Circumscribing the available of the partial defence affects the liberty of anyone who would previously have been able to advance a provocation defence.

Justice Thompson struck down the current wording, thus returning the law to its original wording.  However, he proceeded to convict Simard of second-degree murder.

The government’s objective in amending the definition of provocation in the Criminal Code in 2015 may have been to protect vulnerable women by ensuring that those who might attack them would not be allowed to argue the defence of provocation after the fact.  However, Justice Thompson ruled that the “amended provisions extend to behaviour far beyond the object of the legislation.  Provocation has never been confined to situations in which the victims are vulnerable women.”

Simard’s lawyer, Matthew Nathanson, considered Justice Thompson’s ruling to be significant as it was the first time a court had considered the new limits on the defence of provocation in Canada.  Nathanson stated:

The court found that the purpose of the law was to protect vulnerable women.  Clearly this is an important and appropriate goal.  However, the court also found that in certain situations the law would deny the defence of provocation to women who killed in the context of serious domestic violence.  In this way, a law designed to protect vulnerable women would deny them an important defence.  This is counterintuitive and unfair.  In constitutional terms, it means the law is arbitrary, overbroad, and had to be struck down.

Simard will return to court on May 7, 2019 for sentencing.  The offence of second-degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.

If you have any questions regarding charges that have been laid against you or your legal rights, please contact the knowledgeable criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947.  Our skilled criminal lawyers have significant experience defending a wide range of criminal charges and protecting our client’s rights.  For your convenience, we offer a 24-hour telephone service to protect your rights and to ensure that you have access to justice.

Supreme Court Rules a Crucial Element of Child Luring Law is Unconstitutional

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Last month the highest court in Canada ruled that a provision in the law forbidding the luring of children over the internet is unconstitutional and ordered a new trial for alleged offender Douglas Morrison (“Morrison”).  This decision may result in a number of child luring convictions being overturned across Canada.

In this landmark decision regarding the validity of child luring laws in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down two parts of the child luring laws found under section 172.1 of the Criminal Code.  The decision in R. v. Morrison will affect those cases where police officers pretend to be minors in an effort to apprehend suspected online predators.

WHAT IS THE CHILD LURING LAW IN CANADA?

The offence of child luring in Canada can be found in section 172.1 of the Criminal Code.  Child luring is defined as using the internet to communicate with an individual who is, or who the perpetrator believes to be, under the age of 18 for the purposes of committing the offence of sexual exploitation, incest, child pornography or sexual assault. 

You may also be charged with child luring if you communicate with an individual you know, or believe to be, under the age of 16 for the purposes of committing the offence of sexual exploitation, invitation to sexual touching, indecent exposure to a person under the age of 16 or abduction of a person under 16 years old.

If the Crown chooses to proceed by indictment (more serious offences) and you are found guilty of child luring, you will face a minimum of one year in prison, up to a maximum of 14 years in prison.  If the Crown chooses to proceed summarily (less serious offences), you will face a minimum of 6 months in jail, up to a maximum of 2 years less a day.

WHAT HAPPENED IN R. v. MORRISON?

Morrison was charged with child luring under section 172.1 of the Criminal Code.  He posted an online ad on Craigslist pursuing sexual conversations and stating he was interested in younger girls.  His ad was entitled “Daddy looking for his little girl”. 

Over the course of two months, police posed as a 14 year old girl named “Mia”.  Morrison began a sexual discussion with Mia, requested that she touch herself sexually, suggested she watch pornography, asked her for photographs, and arranged to pick Mia up after school (the encounter never occurred).  Consequently, Morrison was charged with child luring. 

During his trial, Morrison argued that he believed he was speaking to an adult online who was role playing as a character of a 14 year old girl.  He maintained that the rules on Craigslist require that users are to be 18 years old or older.  He was convicted at trial and the conviction was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA?

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, Morrison brought three Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) challenges pertaining to section 172.1 of the Criminal Code. The Charter arguments before the court were the following:

  • Section 172.1(3) violated his right to be presumed innocent under section 11(d) of the Charter;
  • Section 172.1(4) contains presumptions (requiring a person to take reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the individual they are contacting and to ensure he/she is not underage) that were not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice and violated section 7 of the Charter, which protects the right to life, liberty and security of a person; and
  • Section 172.1(2)(b) contains a mandatory minimum sentence of one year in prison which violated the guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment found in section 12 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada overturned Morrison’s conviction citing errors made by the trial judge.  The Court ruled unanimously that the government’s wording of the child luring law violates the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Charter.  It is the role of the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused genuinely believed he/she was communicating with an individual who was underage.

Justice Michael Moldaver, writing for the majority of the Court, stated:

In short, there is but one pathway to conviction: proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused believed the other person was underage.  Nothing less will suffice.

The accused, in his/her defence, may prove that he/she took “reasonable” steps to determine if the alleged victim was underage.  If this cannot be shown, then the accused cannot argue that he/she believed the alleged victim was of legal age.

The Supreme Court was also asked to consider the appeal by the Crown that Morrison was not given the mandatory one-year minimum sentence.  The trial judge gave Morrison a four month sentence, and ruled that the one year mandatory minimum sentence found in the Criminal Code was unconstitutional as it violated the guarantees found in the Charter against cruel and unusual punishment. However, the majority of the justices did not rule on this issue.

Given the potential ramifications resulting from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Morrison, we will continue to follow any developments in the news and the case law and will report any updates that become available in this blog.

In the meantime, if you are facing child luring charges or have any questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the knowledgeable criminal defence lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947.  Our skilled criminal lawyers have significant experience defending a wide range of criminal charges and protecting our client’s rights.  For your convenience, we offer a 24-hour telephone service.  We are available when you need us most.

Government Announces Legislation to Pardon Pot Possession

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

On March 1, 2019, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Ralph Goodale announced new legislation proposed to allow those previously convicted of simple marijuana possession to be pardoned once their sentence is complete.

The Trudeau government introduced Bill C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis, which would amend the Criminal Records Act.

According to Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction Minister Bill Blair, there are approximately 400,000 Canadians with criminal records for simple possession. However, the government expects that there are between 70,000 to 80,000 Canadians eligible to apply for the streamlined pardon process.

WHAT IS BILL C-93?

Bill C-93 proposes to allow those formerly convicted of simple cannabis possession in Canada to apply for a pardon, or record suspension, once their sentence has been served. This proposal will also allow for both the fee ($631) and the five to ten year waiting period to be waived. All individuals would be eligible to apply even if they are not a Canadian citizen or resident of Canada.

The government is hopeful that the elimination of the stigma of a criminal record, in addition to the fee and waiting period for those who have completed their sentence and proven themselves to be law-abiding citizens, will likely increase opportunities for all Canadians.

The Honourable Ralph Goodale describes the proposed legislation as “unique and historic” and stated:

The Cannabis Act’s coming into force marked an important step in the process of legalizing, strictly regulating and restricting access to cannabis in Canada. This proposed legislation will help eliminate what are disproportionate consequences, and reduce barriers to reintegration for Canadians convicted only of simple cannabis possession.

The proposed law would apply to those convicted of simple possession. This refers to those charged with possession of cannabis for personal use, with no intent to traffic (to sell, administer, give, transfer, transport, send or deliver).

The proposed pardon, otherwise known as a record suspension, allows those that have completed their sentence and after they have proven to be law-abiding citizens to have their criminal record removed from the Canadian Police Information Centre database. However, it will not erase the conviction entirely (expungement), but will keep the record separate from other criminal records. The pardon could be reversed if the individual is convicted of new crimes or is “found to no longer be of good conduct”.

A pardon will allow those convicted of simple possession to access educational and employment opportunities, volunteer in their communities, and reintegrate into society.

According to the Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction:

Ensuring timely access to pardons for individuals previously convicted only of simple possession of cannabis will help make things fairer for these Canadians – including visible minority communities, Indigenous communities and those in our most vulnerable neighbourhoods – who should have greater access to employment, volunteering opportunities, educational programs, and housing.

CRITICS ARGUE FOR EXPUNGEMENT

The NDP justice critic Murray Rankin is attempting to improve the proposed bill by pushing for the expungement of cannabis records, rather than the suspension of records for simple possession. An expungement of a criminal record would completely destroy or remove the record of a conviction. Expungement also protects individuals against a future government that may reverse the amnesty proposed by the current government.

MP Rankin had previously tabled a private member’s bill last fall, which we addressed in an earlier blog.

Akwasi Owusu-Bempah, a University of Toronto sociologist, does not believe that the new bill goes far enough. According to Owusu-Bempah, young people over the last 15 years, especially those of colour, have been overrepresented in arrest statistics involving marijuana. However, his research indicates that those that are black, white and Latino in Toronto consume cannabis at approximately the same rate. He believes that destroying cannabis-possession records entirely is the only way to recognize the “profound historical injustices that have stemmed from the war on drugs and cannabis prohibition in particular, especially how those have affected both marginalized and racialized populations”.

MP Goodale defends the government’s position to allow pardons and not expungements by stating that expungements of a criminal record are only applicable for convictions under laws that have been declared unconstitutional, such as the prohibition of same-sex relations. He also maintains that the proposed pardon process is cheaper and faster than expungement.

We will continue to provide updates in this blog regarding the law with respect to criminal records for simple cannabis possession.

In the meantime, if you are facing drug related charges or have any questions concerning your legal rights, please contact Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We maintain a 24-hour call service to protect your rights and offer a free consultation. Trust our experienced lawyers to handle your defence with diligence and expertise.

Justice Tulloch Recommends Police Abolish Random Carding

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

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

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

WHAT IS CARDING?

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

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

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

 ONTARIO REGULATION 58/16

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

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

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

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

According to Justice Tulloch:

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

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

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

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

 According to Justice Tulloch,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the meantime, to speak with an experienced criminal defence lawyer about any charges laid against you or your legal rights, please contact Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We offer a free consultation and are available to help you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

 

Harsher Drinking and Driving Laws In Effect Next Week

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

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

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

MANDATORY ALCOHOL SCREENING

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

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

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

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

PENALTIES FOR IMPAIRED DRIVERS

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

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

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

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

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

DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE RELEASE NAMES OF ACCUSED IMPAIRED DRIVERS

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Legislation to End Solitary Confinement

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Following the Ontario and British Columbia Superior Court decisions that found that the use of segregation was unconstitutional (which we have previously blogged about), a new piece of legislation has been introduced which proposes to overhaul how federal inmates are separated from the general prison population.

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale has introduced Bill C-83 to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. These changes would eliminate solitary confinement and replace it with “structured intervention units” (“SIUs”). The SIUs will allow inmates to be separated from the general population if they are unable to exist safely with the other prisoners.

HOW WILL SEGREGATION IN PRISONS CHANGE UNDER BILL C-83?

As it stands today, inmates placed in solitary confinement are allowed two hours a day outside of their cell, but are not entitled to any human contact. Under Bill C-83, prisoners who are found to be at risk to themselves or others will be placed in SIUs.

Prisoners placed in SIUs will have access to rehabilitative programming, interventions, and mental-health care. They will be visited daily by a registered health care professional and be provided access to patient advocates. These inmates will be given at least four hours a day outside of their cell and at least two hours a day with “meaningful” human contact.

Bill C-83 also proposes to allow staff members to use body scan imaging technology as an alternative to body cavity searches to prevent contraband from entering prisons.

Furthermore, Bill C-83 includes provisions that background and systemic factors should be considered in all correctional decisions in cases involving indigenous inmates.

Correctional Service of Canada Commissioner Anne Kelly supports the proposed legislation and stated:

I believe these legislative changes will transform the federal correctional system while ensuring that our institutions provide a safe and secure environment that is conducive to inmate rehabilitation, staff safety and the protection of the public. They will also help ensure that our correctional system continues to be progressive and takes into account the needs of a diverse offender population.

LIMITATIONS OF BILL C-83

Bill C-83 does not address the time limits for segregation or the independent oversight of segregation decisions, which are both issues that the federal correctional ombudsman and rights advocates have been lobbying for.

Furthermore, if this bill passes, this legislation will have no effect on the use of solitary confinement in all provincial jails. These jails are made up of pretrial prisoners and those inmates serving sentences of less than two years.

Goodale believes that the appeals by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in Ontario and the federal government in B.C. with respect to the constitutionality of current policies for solitary confinement that are scheduled to begin next month will proceed. But, he is hopeful that this new legislation will address the concerns of all current policies and make further litigation regarding solitary confinement unnecessary.

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

A lawsuit has been certified by a Superior Court Judge as a class action lawsuit in Ontario alleging that the Ontario government violated the rights of its inmates by placing them inappropriately in solitary confinement.

The $600 million legal action alleges that the provincial government has been negligent in utilizing segregation by isolating prisoners for weeks, months or even years.

The lawsuit includes inmates diagnosed with severe mental illnesses (i.e. schizophrenia or psychosis) who served time in segregation in provincial facilities since January 1, 2009. Inmates who were placed in solitary confinement for 15 days or longer are also included in the class.

The main issue in the lawsuit is “administrative segregation”. This takes place when inmates are isolated either to ensure their own safety or for the safety of others in the facility. Inmates are kept in tiny cells without any human contact for most of the day.

Conrey Francis (“Francis”) is the representative Plaintiff for this class action lawsuit. Francis is the individual who represents the entire class in the action.

Francis has spent several periods of time in prison since 1982, and was placed in solitary confinement. Francis has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and suffers from extreme panic attacks. Francis alleges that his time in isolation worsened his mental health and he began suffering from suicidal thoughts and auditory hallucinations.

We will continue to follow the developments of Bill C-83, the appeals regarding the rulings that administrative segregations are unconstitutional, and the class action lawsuit commenced in Ontario and will report any updates in 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 contact Affleck & Barrison at 905-404-1947 or contact us online. We are highly knowledgeable and extremely experienced at defending a wide range of criminal charges. For your convenience, we offer 24-hour phone services.

Bill Tabled to Expunge Cannabis-Related Criminal Records

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

A new bill has been introduced in the House of Commons to expunge the records of those individuals who have a criminal record for past minor, non-violent marijuana possession convictions.

New Democrat MP Murray Rankin has tabled the private member’s Bill C-415, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain cannabis-related convictions. Rankin estimates that more than 500,000 Canadians have a criminal record for personal possession charges for marijuana.

BILL C-415

The new bill proposes to expunge criminal records for those convicted of personal possession crimes that will no longer be considered illegal pursuant to Bill C-45, which comes into effect on October 17, 2018. This bill will also allow those applying for a pardon to not have to wait five to ten years and pay the current $631 fee. Under Rankin’s proposal, the process will be faster and entirely free.

In 2016, 58% of all charges related to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act were related to cannabis, and approximately three quarters of those offences were for possession.

Supporters of Bill C-415 maintain that it is unreasonable to have individuals continue to be unable to attain jobs, volunteer in the community or coach a child’s sports team for doing something that will no longer be illegal in a weeks time.

MP Rankin notes that a disproportionate number of non-violent cannabis-related convictions belong to marginalized or racialized Canadians. He reports:

In Toronto, black people without a criminal record were three times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than white people. In Halifax, five times as likely. In Regina, it’s nine times more often for Indigenous people.

The federal government has made it clear that it will not consider marijuana pardons until after legalization. However, the possibility of doing so has not been ruled out and the government is currently evaluating the legal implications.

RECORD SUSPENSIONS (PARDONS)

A criminal record can be a barrier to attaining a job, volunteering, or going on a vacation out of the country. In order to remove your criminal record from law enforcement databases, you must be granted a Record Suspension (formerly known as a Pardon).

You do not need to apply for a Record Suspension if charges against you were dismissed, stayed or withdrawn, or did not result in a conviction.

Once you have completed your sentence and proven that you are a law-abiding citizen, you may have your record removed from the Canadian Police Information Centre database by being issued a Record Suspension.

Possession of marijuana up to 30 grams is a summary conviction offence. Those convicted of a summary conviction offence (less serious and punishable by shorter prison sentences and smaller fines, without the right to a jury trial) cannot apply for a Record Suspension until at least 5 years have passed since he/she completed his/her imprisonment, paid his/her fines, and completed his/her term of probation.

Canadians convicted of an indictable offence (more serious crimes) cannot apply for a Record Suspension under the Criminal Records Act until at least 10 years have passed since he/she completed his/her term of imprisonment, paid his/her fine, or completed his/her term of probation.

Those who have been convicted of a sexual assault or sexually-related crime or who have been convicted of more than three indictable offences cannot apply for a Record Suspension. The person applying for a Record Suspension also cannot be convicted of a subsequent offence and must prove to the Parole Board that he/she is of good character.

Clearing your criminal record involves three steps and a waiting period. These steps include data collection, data analysis, and the Canadian pardon application.

Prior to submitting your Record Suspension application to the Parole Board of Canada, it can take from 4 to 6 months to prepare the application and obtain the supporting documents.

An application for a record suspension costs $631, and with added fees for documents and records checks, it could cost in excess of $1,600.

If you are granted a Record Suspension, this means that your record is merely sealed. A member of the public cannot check online to see if you have a record, however, certain legal agencies can still access this information under specific legal circumstances.

On October 17, 2018, the Cannabis Act will become law and in Ontario adults who are 19 or older will be permitted to buy, use, possess, and grow recreational cannabis.  However, until legalization comes into effect Canadians will continue to be charged for cannabis offences.

We will continue to provide updates in this blog regarding the proposed bill to expunge criminal records for minor cannabis possession and the legalization of cannabis in Canada as this information becomes available, and will blog about developments as they arise.

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

Canada Has Approved Roadside Saliva Tests

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Canada’s Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould has approved roadside swab tests as a new approach to attack drug use and driving. This will be the first test of its kind in Canada. Police officers will instantly be able to check saliva for traces of THS (the psychoactive component in marijuana).

Currently, there is no accurate way for police officers to assess if an individual is driving under the influence while using cannabis products. Police officers use sobriety tests to check impairments of drivers they suspect are high. In the very near future, Canadian police will have a new tool to use to accurately confirm intoxication – the cannabis roadside saliva drug test.

The roadside saliva test is part of Canada’s revamp to its impaired driving laws. This test is part of Bill C-46, legislation that we have previously blogged about, which will come into force on October 17, 2018.

Wilson-Raybould approved the saliva test device after an independent panel of traffic safety experts and toxicologists evaluated and critiqued the test’s effectiveness.

HOW DOES THE SALIVA TEST WORK?

The saliva testing device will be able to immediately detect traces of cocaine and THC use within the last six hours. Police officers will use a small and portable machine to swab a driver’s mouth and receive results in real time. This testing device will provide a more accurate and reliable upgrade to the current field sobriety tests used by police officers (i.e. walking a straight line or standing on one foot).  A failed test gives police reasonable grounds to bring a driver in for further testing, including a blood test or an examination by a drug recognition expert.

It has been reported that the government will be investing $81 million over a five-year period to buy screening devices and provide officers with comprehensive training on drug-impaired driving.

The federal government is considering using the Draeger DrugTest 5000. This is a German-made mobile drug screening system that uses oral fluid to detect seven types of commonly used drugs. This device has already been approved for use in the United Kingdom and Germany.

This particular device may require modifications in order to operate in Canada’s tough winter climate. Early tests of this device in Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan found that “there were some temperature-related issues that arose when the devices were used in extremely cold temperatures”.

LEGAL CHALLENGES TO ROADSIDE SALIVA DRUG TEST RESULTS

Although the Canadian government is confident in the validity of the roadside saliva tests, the results of these tests will likely face multiple legal challenges from defence lawyers.

Bill C-46 allows the police to charge a driver with drug-impaired driving based solely on the presence of THC. There is no requirement for officers to prove actual impairment. However, unlike alcohol, the presence of THC does not always indicate intoxication.

We can expect that in the future many court cases will shed light on how individual tolerance of THC affects a person’s motor skills and how long cannabis can stay in an individual’s body.

BILL C-46 DRUG-IMPAIRED DRIVING

At the present time, the federal government has released a draft of its planned drug concentration levels and associated offences.

Three new offences for drug-impaired driving have been created under the drafted legislation of Bill C-46:

  • Drivers who have a blood drug concentration of more than two nanograms of THC (per milliliter of blood) but less than five nanograms could be found guilty of impaired driving under the proposed summary offence, which has a maximum fine of $1,000;
  • Drivers who have a blood drug concentration of more than five nanograms of THC in their blood could be found guilty of impaired driving similar to an alcohol-impaired driving conviction, including mandatory minimum penalties of a $1,000 fine on a first offence, 30 days imprisonment on a second offence, and 120 days imprisonment on a third offence;
  • Drivers who have a mixture of a THC level above 2.5 nanograms of THC in their blood and a blood alcohol concentration above 50 mg per 100 mL would be subject to the same penalties as above.

In addition, each province has the right to implement their own drug-impaired driving rules.

TIPS TO AVOID IMPAIRED DRIVING

Here are a few simple tips to avoid driving while you are impaired by drugs and/or alcohol:

  • Always have a plan to get home safely (a designated driver, use public transportation, call a friend or family member, call a taxi or ride share, or stay overnight);
  • Ask your doctor about side effects that may occur when using prescription medication;
  • Read the information on the package of your prescription or over-the-counter medication;
  • Ask your doctor or pharmacist about how a prescription drug can affect you when using alcohol or drugs of any nature; and
  • Remember that fatigue and stress will also affect your ability to drive safely.

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

Big Changes Coming to Canada’s Impaired Driving Laws

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

We are all aware that a significant piece of legislation, the Cannabis Act, has become law. This bill will come into force on October 17, 2018 and it will encompass all the rules regarding the control and regulation of how cannabis is grown, distributed and sold.

There is another piece of legislation, Bill C-46, related to the legalization of marijuana that also received royal assent last week. Bill C-46, also known as the Impaired Driving Act, is an overhaul of Canada’s impaired driving laws.

WHAT IS BILL C-46?

Bill C-46 will reform alcohol-impaired driving and drug-impaired driving and police have been given new tools to detect and prosecute drivers.

The bill is comprised of two parts. Part 1 creates three new offences for driving under the influence of various amounts of drugs and stipulates legal limits of such drugs.  This part also requires drivers not to drive within two hours of being over the legal limits and allows police to conduct tests to screen for drugs using “approved drug screening equipment”.

Part 2 of the bill raises the maximum penalty for impaired driving, reclassifies impaired-driving as a “serious criminality” offence and gives police the power to perform mandatory alcohol screening without reasonable grounds to suspect impairment.

The following are the four major changes to Canada’s impaired driving laws as set out in Bill C-46.

Random Roadside Breath Testing

The new legislation will allow police to request a roadside breath test from any driver. They will not need reasonable suspicion that the person has been drinking (i.e. smell of alcohol on a driver’s breath or slurred speech). Those who refuse the roadside breath test will face a criminal conviction with similar penalties to an impaired driving conviction.

Lawyers and civil liberties groups argue that this change in the law violates the Charter protection against unreasonable search. Furthermore, there is concern that this type of practice will disproportionately affect minorities due to racial profiling.

However, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould is certain that this directive will survive a court challenge. She referred to mandatory alcohol screening as “minimally intrusive, but the benefits in lives saved will be immeasurable”.

The government equated a mandatory breath sample to the requirement to show a driver’s licence.

Roadside Saliva Testing

The new law would allow police to use roadside screening devices that test saliva for the presence of drugs, including THC (the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis). However, unlike alcohol breath tests, police will need to have a reasonable suspicion before requiring this test.

It is unclear when this type of testing will be used by the police as there are a number of steps that still need to take place. The government has yet to approve the devices to be used by the police. Justice Minister Wilson-Raybould will then have to make a ministerial order to approve the devices after a 30-day public consultation. Finally, the devices will need to be purchased and officers will need to be trained on how to use them.

THC Blood Levels

The new legislation will allow police to lay an impaired driving charge based solely on blood test results for THC in blood without needing to further prove impairment.

The government has proposed “per se levels” based on nanograms per millimeter of blood as follows:

  • A THC level between 2 and 5 ng would be a lower-level offence with a fine of up to $1,000;
  • A THC level above 5 ng would result in the same penalties as an alcohol-impaired driving conviction, including mandatory minimum penalties of a $1,000 fine on a first offence, 30 days imprisonment on a second offence and 120 days imprisonment on a third offence;
  • A mixture of a THC level above 2.5 ng and a blood alcohol concentration above 50 mg per 100 mL would have the same penalties as above.

10 Years Maximum Sentence for Impaired Driving

Under Bill C-46, impaired driving convictions will be considered “serious criminality” offences and the maximum sentence will be raised from 5 years to 10 years. This change in the law will greater affect those that could potentially lose permanent residence status and face deportation (i.e. foreign students, workers, visitors and permanent residents).

WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF BILL-46?

Part 1 of the Impaired Driving Act will roll out this summer; however, Part 2 of the bill will not come into force for another 180 days. In the meantime, as the bill comes into force we will report on any developments through this blog.

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