Legislation

Appeal Court Expunges the Defence of Self-Induced Intoxication

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Last week, amidst great controversy, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in the cases of R. v. Sullivan and R. v. Chan regarding the application of the defence of self-induced intoxication. 

This significant decision declared that section 33.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada (“CC”) is unconstitutional and of no force or effect.

SECTION 33.1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

Section 33.1 of the CC established that if an accused caused his/her own intoxication and commits a violent offence, he/she cannot claim that he/she was too intoxicated to be found guilty of even general intent offences (i.e. assault and sexual assault).  This applies even if he/she was intoxicated to the point of automatism (the performance of an action unconsciously or involuntarily), even if his/her acts were involuntary or he/she lacked the mental state to commit the violent act.

In its latest decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal determined that this law breached “virtually all the criminal law principles that the law relies upon to protect the morally innocent, including the venerable presumption of innocence”.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE SULLIVAN CASE?

In the case of David Sullivan, the accused over-consumed prescription medication in an attempt to take his own life.  The medication left him in a state of extreme psychosis.  During the psychotic episode, he believed he had captured an alien and proceeded to stab his mother.

At trial, Sullivan was found guilty of the violent offence despite Sullivan’s contention that his intoxication was involuntary as it resulted from a suicide attempt. 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CHAN CASE?

Thomas Chan, a high school student, stabbed and killed his father and severely injured his father’s partner during a psychotic episode after consuming magic mushrooms.  Chan believed he was a deity and that his father was the devil. 

At trial, Chan also attempted to rely upon the defence of non-mental disorder automatism.  Given section 33.1, which prohibits the use of automatism as a defence in cases of violence when an accused’s intoxication was self-inflicted, this defence failed and Chan was convicted.

THE COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION REGARDING SECTION 33.1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

The Court of Appeal found that section 33.1 of the CC violated the following sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

  1. The right to life, liberty and security of the person (section 7); and
  2. The right to the presumption of innocence (section 11(d)).

Under Canadian law, if a law violates a Charter right, in certain circumstances it can be justified by the Crown and upheld despite the violations.  In this case, the Appeal Court could not find benefits to the law, and instead found that the law was contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal wrote:

Put simply, the deleterious effects of s.33.1 include the contravention of virtually all the criminal law principles that the law relies upon to protect the morally innocent, including the venerable presumption of innocence. …

With very little true gain, Parliament has attempted to cast aside the bedrock of moral fault.

The Court of Appeal held that a person must act voluntarily to commit a crime.  Although lawmakers attempted to help victims attain justice with the introduction of section 33.1 of the CC, the law in actuality violated an accused’s rights by making them responsible for violence they had no control over.  Justices David Paciocco and David Watt wrote:

As for recognizing and promoting the equality, security and dignity of crime victims, it is obvious that those few victims who may see their offenders acquitted without s.33.1 will be poorly served.  They are victims, whether their attacked willed or intended the attack.  However, to convict an attacker of offences for which they do not bear the moral fault required by the Charter to void this outcome, is to replace on injustice for another, and at an intolerable cost to the core principles that animate criminal liability.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial for Chan as he was only convicted of offences that included an element of assault and those convictions depended upon section 33.1.  On the other hand, the Court of Appeal acquitted Sullivan of all of his charges.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The Crown prosecutor has advised that it will be seeking leave to appeal these decisions to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund has strongly expressed its frustration over this Court of Appeal decision and believes that this decision sends a message “that men can avoid accountability for their acts of violence against women and children through intoxication”.

However, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has expressed that the concern that the floodgates have been opened to men arguing the defence of intoxication are unwarranted.  An accused must still prove that he/she was in a state of automatism, not merely drunk.

Cara Zwibel, Director with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, stated:

This is a rarely used provision.  It’s not this widespread, systemic concern.

We will continue to follow the law as it evolves in response to the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decisions and will report any developments in this blog.

In the meantime, 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 905-404-1047.  Our skilled criminal lawyers have significant experience defending a wide range of criminal charges and protecting their 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.

Trudeau Calls for More Gun Control in Canada Following Deadly Rampage in Nova Scotia

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

In response to the recent tragic shooting incident in Nova Scotia, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his government will work towards strengthening gun control legislation in Canada as soon as possible.

It is the Prime Minister’s intention to introduce legislation to ban assault-style weapons across Canada when Parliament resumes. 

PM Trudeau stated:

The tragedy in Nova Scotia simply reinforces and underlines how important it is for us to continue to move forward on strengthening gun control. … We were on the verge of introducing new measures to restrict assault type weapons in Canada before Parliament was suspended because of COVID-19.

Public Safety Minister Bill Blair has also indicated that the federal government is working towards efforts to reinforce gun control, which will include new legislation to strengthen gun storage rules to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of those who could commit crimes, decrease smuggling of firearms across the border and introduce new laws to ensure that individuals that are at a significant risk of harming themselves or others do not have access to firearms.

FIREARMS ACT CHANGES OF 2019 ARE STILL PENDING

Bill C-71, an act to amend legislation in relation to firearms in Canada, was passed into law in May 2019 and provided approximately 30 amendments to the Firearms Act.  This legislation enhances background checks, compels retailers to keep records of firearms sales (dates, references, license numbers, firearm’s make, model, type and serial number) and varies the authorization to transport rules (a licensed gun owner must possess an authorization to transport document if they want to travel with a restricted firearm). 

Bill C-71 also requires that the police examine an applicant’s life history for potential red flags, including criminal charges, violence and spousal abuse.  However, these amendments are still pending. 

A spokesperson for Minster Blair advised that Bill C-71 provisions will come into force “once the necessary administrative changes have been made, funding has been approved and the associated regulations have been tabled in Parliament for review”.  In February 2020, Minister Blair advised that the enactment of C-71 amendments were ongoing and would be addressed in the upcoming budget.  However, the federal budget has been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

WHAT HAPPENED IN NOVA SCOTIA?

On April 18, 2020 at 10:26 p.m., RCMP officers arrived in Portapique, Nova Scotia following 911 calls reporting gunshots.  The officers found a man that had been shot.  He reported that as he drove out of Portapique he was shot by a man driving what looked like a police car towards the beach.

As more officers responded to the scene, they located several deceased individuals lying in the roadway and several structures fully engulfed in flames. 

The suspect at the time, Gabriel Wortman (“Wortman”), a 51-year-old denturist, was identified by several witnesses. 

On Sunday morning, a woman who had previously been in a relationship with Wortman emerged from the woods and explained that she had escaped from Wortman and hid in the woods until it was safe to emerge.  It seems that the deadly events began when Wortman assaulted this woman and she escaped.  She told police that the suspect was in possession of a fully modern and equipped replica RCMP vehicle, was wearing a police uniform and had several firearms, including pistols and long barrel weapons.

Wortman proceeded to go on a 14-hour killing spree, targeting individuals he knew and strangers in a string of small communities in central Nova Scotia.  There were 16 crime scenes along a 40-mile stretch north of the Bay of Fundy.  He set fire to five properties, including his own log cabin in Portapique. 

Wortman was traveling south near Shubenacadie, Nova Scotia, when he collided with a police cruiser.  He proceeded to exchange gunfire with Constable Heidi Stevenson, a 23-year veteran of the RCMP, and killed her.  He then set fire to both Stevenson’s vehicle and his own. 

Wortman then killed another individual and stole her silver Chevrolet Tracker.  When he finally stopped to fill up the car with gas, he was spotted by an officer in an unmarked cruiser.  Wortman was eventually killed following an exchange of gunfire with police at the gas station in Enfield, north of Halifax.

We have come to learn that Wortman had been previously convicted of assault in 2002 and received a conditional discharge.  He was ordered to undergo counselling for anger management and banned from possession of firearms, explosives and any prohibited weapons for nine months.  He was also ordered to pay a fine.

At this time, investigators continue to piece together details of Wortman’s rampage and how he was able to obtain the firearms used during his deadly attack, as well as the decals for his fake police car.  Police believe that one of the weapons can be traced back to Canada, but others may have been obtained in the United States. 

As information becomes available, we will continue to report changes in the law regarding firearms in Canada in this blog.

If you have been charged with a weapons offence or have any questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the experienced criminal defence 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.

Dealing Drugs is Not an Essential Business

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

As COVID-19 continues to spread throughout Ontario and the world, following the advice of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, the government of Ontario has declared a state of emergency and has responded with various out of the ordinary orders and restrictions for all citizens.  This includes the closure of public gathering spaces, physical distancing requirements, travel restrictions and temporary closure orders. 

In declaring an emergency under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, this allowed the government to exercise far-reaching powers to respond to this unprecedented medical emergency. 

On March 23, 2020, Ontario Premier Doug Ford ordered all non-essential workplaces to temporarily close in an effort to battle the spread of the threatening virus.  Essential businesses such as grocery stores, convenience stores, pharmacies, gas stations, liquor stores, licensed cannabis stores and restaurants providing take out or delivery were all allowed to remain open.  The list of non-essential workplaces to temporarily close was expanded effective April 4, 2020, including the closure of licensed cannabis stores.

Police and peace officers, including special constables and bylaw officers, have been granted the power to impose fines for violating an order issued under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act ranging from $750 to $100,000 to individuals and a term of imprisonment up to one year.  If the individual is a director or officer of a corporation, they could be subject to a fine up to $500,000 and a term of imprisonment up to one year.  The corporation itself could be fined up to $10,000,000.  These fines can be imposed for each day the offence was committed.  Furthermore, an individual or corporation can be fined an amount equal to the financial benefit that was acquired while the business continued to operate contrary to the issued order.

Premier Ford emphasized how serious this health crisis is by stating:

We are facing a critical moment in the fight against COVID-19 and we must do everything in our power to keep everyone safe and healthy and prevent our health care system from being overwhelmed.  Everyone must do their part to stop the spread and flatten the curve.  If you are not an essential business, you need to close your doors, work from home if possible and play a role to help contain the outbreak.  This is a matter of life and death.

DRUG DEALER FINED FOR OPERATING A NON-ESSENTIAL BUSINESS

On March 27, 2020, investigators observed a man driving a black Jeep Grand Cherokee and making several stops to conduct drug transactions in the area of Main Street West and Norfolk Street South in Hamilton. 

Police found cocaine divided in small plastic bags valued at $3,400 and almost $6,000 in cash.  In addition to criminal charges of possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, the 29-year-old accused was also issued a provincial offence ticket for operating a non-essential business under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act.

This incident follows another case that also occurred in Hamilton. On March 19, 2020, Hamilton police attended Shisha Kaif Café, a hookah lounge, after complaints were made that business was operating as usual.  Police found that the lounge was operating in violation of the emergency shutdown order.  The owner was issued a summons to appear in court and was given a $750 fine.

STAY OFF ALL PLAYGROUNDS

Emergency measures in place throughout Ontario include the closure of all outdoor recreational facilities, including playgrounds, skate parks, off-leash parks, sports fields and tennis courts.  Most of these outdoor public areas have signs posted and caution tape around them, where possible, to keep individuals away from these closed off areas.

The Ontario government also took action to protect Ontarians by placing a limit on social gatherings to no more than five people, effective immediately.  This order does not apply to private households with five people or more, those operating child care centres for frontline health care workers and first responders, or funerals which may proceed with up to ten people. 

As of March 27, 2020, police officers and municipal bylaw officers can issue a ticket for non-compliance with an official order.  The fine for disobeying the rules start at $750 per occurrence, per person.  You can also be charged multiple days in a row.

In a statement by Matt Gaskell, Whitby chief administrative officer:

We are continuing to see residents who are ignoring the need for physical distancing and using our playgrounds, sports fields and outdoor amenities.  Our message to residents is clear:  these amenities are closed and anyone using them is not only putting their health at risk but the lives of others in our community.  Our bylaw officers are working closely with the Durham Regional Police Service to fine those who are not getting this important message.

Durham police have reported that they have received more than 200 complaints from citizens in relation to the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act.  The complaints were originally regarding non-essential business that were not closed, but they are now receiving more complaints regarding social gathering, especially as the weather warms up.  Those that want to report someone or groups using outdoor recreation areas can contact the Durham Regional Police at www.drps.ca or call the DRPS Intelligence Branch Hotline at 1-888-579-1529, extension 5802.

As our government continues to respond to COVID-19, we will continue to provide updates on these developments in this blog.

In the meantime, if you have been charged with a criminal offence 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 many years of experience defending a wide variety of criminal offences.  Contact our office today 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.

Criminal Convictions are in Jeopardy Following Clarification of New Rules For Jury Selection by the Appeal Court

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

A recent ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the case of R. v. Chouhan, regarding how jury selection changes should be applied, could require new trials for those recently convicted in Ontario.

Pardeep Singh Chouhan (“Chouhan”) challenged the new rules for jury selection that were set out in Bill C-75 at the court of appeal.  The jury selection process in Chouhan’s first-degree murder trial took place on the same day as the changes to the legislation came into force.  The appeal court upheld the constitutionality of the new rules, however, ruled that the trial judge did not apply the new rules correctly.

WHAT CHANGES OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF BILL C-75?

As we have previously blogged, following the acquittal of Gerald Stanley, who was charged with killing a 22-year-old Indigenous man, Bill C-75 was introduced to modify the jury selection process in Canada.  The changes to jury selection were intended to make juries more representative.

The reform of the jury selection procedure under the new legislation, which came into force on September 19, 2019, is as follows:

  1. The trial judge will be the one to determine whether the prospective juror is likely to decide the case impartially in the circumstances when either party has challenged the juror for cause. 
  2. The ability to challenge prospective jurors by means of peremptory challenges by either party has been eliminated.
  3. The trial judge has been given the discretion to stand aside a juror for the purpose of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.

WHAT HAPPENED AT CHOUHAN’S TRIAL?

Chouhan was charged with first-degree murder in the 2016 shooting death of  Maninder Sandhu.  Chouhan was scheduled to select a jury for his murder trial on September 19, 2019, the same day that Bill C-75 and the changes to the jury selection process came into force.  We have previously blogged about this Superior Court decision.

At that time, Chouhan’s lawyers requested that the court use the previous jury selection rules as the new jury selection process violated Chouhan’s Charter rights.  The presiding judge rejected the defence arguments that doing away with peremptory challenges infringed Chouhan’s constitutional right to be tried by an independent and impartial jury.  Ontario Superior Court Justice John McMahon ruled that the new changes to the jury selection process should apply to every jury selected after the legislation came into force and for those cases in the system where the accused had already opted for a jury trial.

WHAT HAPPENED AT CHOUHAN’S APPEAL?

Chouhan’s case made its way to the court of appeal, at which point the unanimous court ruled that the new rules were constitutional and did not infringe Chouhan’s Charter rights.  However, the three judges of the appeal court held that the trial court did not apply the new rules appropriately.

Writing on behalf of the appeal court judges, Justice Watt wrote:

With respect to the temporal application of the amendments, I decide that the abolition of the peremptory challenge applies prospectively, that is to say, only to cases where the accused’s right to a trial by judge and jury vested on or after September 19, 2019.  …[T]he amendment making the presiding judge the trier of all challenges for cause applies retrospectively, that is to say, to all cases tried on or after September 19, 2019, irrespective of when the right vested.

[N]ot all accused charged with an offence before September 19, 2019 have a vested right to a trial by judge and jury under the former legislation.  For the right to have vested, the accused must have, before September 19, 2019:

(i) been charged with an offence within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court;

(ii) been directly indicted; or

(iii) elected for a trial in Superior Court by judge and jury.

The Court of Appeal allowed Chouhan’s appeal, set aside his conviction and ordered a new trial on the indictment.

The Ontario government can appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.  We understand that the Crown is currently reviewing the appeal court decision and we will provide an update in this blog when information regarding the government’s decision on an appeal becomes available.

We will continue to follow the affects of the Chouhan decision on legal cases and will provide updates in this blog.  We can advise that only hours after the appeal court decision in the Chouhan case, two cases being heard in Toronto’s Superior Court (a murder charge and a sexual assault case) were declared mistrials.

If you have questions regarding charges laid against you or your legal rights, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP at 905-404-1947 or contact us online.  Our skilled criminal defence lawyers have significant experience defending a wide range of criminal charges and protecting our client’s rights.  We offer a free consultation and are available to help you 24/7.

Edibles are Available for Sale in Ontario

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

In Ontario, new cannabis products became available for legal sale this week in physical retail stores.  The Ontario Cannabis Store released 59 new products  including edibles, beverages, lotions and concentrates.  These products will become available for sale online on January 16, 2020.

Legal edibles, such as chocolates or soft chews, are available for sale at a cost of $7 to $14, beverages are available at a cost of $4 to $10, topicals will be sold between $15 and $55, concentrates are to be sold between $30 and $70 and vape products will be sold between $25 to $125.

EARLY SUPPLY OF EDIBLES WILL BE LIMITED

Ontario’s cannabis distributor has warned that supplies will be limited at first and may sell out within the week.  The Ontario Cannabis Store’s vice-president of corporate affairs, David Lobo, warns consumers:

[W]e expect the supply that will come to the initial stores to potentially sell out within the first week.  As quickly as it comes to us we are going to move supply through the system.

Manufacturers must provide 60 days notice of their intention to sell products and most undergo regulatory screening.  More products will become available as they receive regulatory approval.

On behalf of Ontario’s cannabis distributor, Lobo advised:

We suspect that over the first half of 2020 there will be a lot more new products that come to market but for the products that we got today, we expect that in February and March that supply will rapidly improve.  We will make sure that every store has equal access to product through our allocations but just like any other product that has come to market over the past year as soon as supply improves we will completely open that up and stores can make their own choice around how much product they want to purchase.

Kevin Lam, senior director of merchandising at the agency, believes that the new products will allow the legal Ontario shops to compete with the black market.  He states:

We’ve compared our offerings to similar products in the illegal market to ensure that our initial retail will be competitive.

However, some experts warn that given the current legislation which limits edible items to only contain a maximum of 10 milligrams of THC, regular consumers may purchase from the black market where these restrictions do not apply.

WHAT ARE EDIBLES?

Cannabis edibles are food or beverage products made with cannabis or cannabis oils.  Edibles may be in the form of baked goods, teas, soft drinks or cannabis infused butter.  These products contain THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), which causes the high feeling and can be used as an alternative to smoking or vaping cannabis.

It is recommended that if you are trying edibles for the first time to start low and go slow.  Cannabis edibles may be more potent than other types of cannabis and the effects may last longer.  When you consume edibles, the high is often delayed. 

The following are some of the short-term effects of consuming edibles:

  • Anxiety, fear or panic;
  • Confusion;
  • Dizziness or fainting;
  • Lower ability to concentrate or remember things;
  • Higher heart rate;
  • Paranoia and delusional thoughts;
  • Lower ability to react quickly; and
  • Drowsiness.

Consuming edibles may result in the following long-term effects:

  • Risk of addiction;
  • Risk of reducing the ability to concentrate or the ability to make decisions; and
  • Higher risk of developing or exacerbating mental health issues such as psychosis or schizophrenia.

WHAT IS CANNABIS POISONING?

Symptoms related to the overconsumption of cannabis is often referred to as cannabis poisoning.  Given the nature of edibles, it is easier to be poisoned compared to smoking or vaping cannabis.  Although cannabis poisoning is not generally fatal, it can be dangerous and may require emergency medical attention. 

Symptoms of cannabis poisoning includes chest pain, rapid heartbeat, nausea/vomiting, psychotic episode, respiratory depression and/or severe anxiety or panic attacks. 

HOW TO REDUCE YOUR RISK

If you plan on purchasing and consuming edibles, it is suggested that you adhere to the following recommendations to reduce your risk.

  • Purchase edibles from the Ontario Cannabis Store or an authorized cannabis retailer to ensure that the products are safe to consume;
  • Start with a low level of THC, such as 2.5 milligrams or less;
  • Always read the label before consuming edibles, as some products may have expiry dates or ingredients that could cause an allergic reaction;
  • Be aware that it may take 30 minutes to 2 hours to start feeling the effects of the edible product and you may not feel the full effects for up to 4 hours;
  • The effects of consuming edibles can last for up to 12 hours;
  • Always follow the laws regarding purchasing cannabis and never drive following the consumption of cannabis products in any form;
  • Always keep cannabis edibles locked up and out of the reach of children and pets as some of these products may look the same as other foods.

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

Changes to Jury Selection Upheld in Ontario Court

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

An Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled that the changes to peremptory challenges of jurors should be applied to jury selection beginning September 19, 2019. 

The decision in R. v Chouhan upholds the constitutionality of the new legislation found in Bill C-75 that removed the ability for lawyers to challenge potential jurors.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On September 19, 2019, Pardeep Singh Chouhan was scheduled to select a jury for a first-degree murder trial.  This was also the day that Bill C-75 came into force. 

The amendments set out in Bill C-75 reform the procedure for jury selection in the following three ways:

  1. The trial judge will be the one to determine whether the prospective juror is likely to decide the case impartially in the circumstances when either party has challenged the juror for cause.  Previously, the court used lay triers to make this determination.
  2. The ability to challenge prospective jurors by means of peremptory challenges by either party has been eliminated.
  3. The trial judge has been given the discretion to stand aside a juror for the purpose of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.

In court, Chouhan’s lawyers argued that the provisions of Bill C-75, specifically the elimination of peremptory challenges, violates sections 7 (the right to life, liberty and security), 11(d) (the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty) and 11(f) (the right to trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment) of the Charter of Rights and FreedomsChouhan’s lawyers argued that the new procedures would breach their client’s right to an independent and impartial jury by giving the trial judge the discretion to make the determination in circumstances of either party challenging the juror for cause.

Justice John McMahon concluded that Bill C-75 does not violate an individual’s rights under the Charter.  Justice McMahon wrote in his decision:

The ability to exclude a potential juror based simply on their appearance, their look, or a person’s gut feeling, without furnishing a reason, is not transparent.  The elimination of the peremptory challenge does make the justice system more transparent, but without removing either parties’ ability to set aside potential jurors for articulate reasons.  The representativeness of the panel, the randomness of its selection and the ability for either party to challenge the process provide sufficient safeguards.

Justice McMahon held that an accused is not entitled to a jury that “reflects the proportionality of the population” or those of members of the same demographic group.  He concluded that there are safeguards in place to ensure that the jury remains independent and impartial, including the ability to screen prospective jurors for bias and the trial judge’s ability to excuse or reject prospective jurors for specific reasons.  He explained:

It appears that if either party can articulate reasons why a prospective juror would not be impartial, the judge would clearly have the ability to stand aside a prospective juror to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

Chouhan’s lawyers also argued that the changes to jury selection should not apply to those whose alleged offence occurred before Bill C-75 came into force.  Justice McMahon dismissed this argument and maintained that the new rules should be applied for every jury selected after they went into force, including Chouhan’s pending trial.

WHAT IS THE NEW LAW REGARDING JURY SELECTION?

Section 634 of the Criminal Code provided the rules for peremptory challenges.  Bill C-75 was established by the government in an effort to make juries more representative following the divisive acquittal of Gerald Stanley.  We have previously written a blog regarding the case of Stanley, who was charged with second-degree murder in the death of an Indigenous man, Colten Boushie.  In this case, there were no Indigenous members sitting in the jury.

Bill C-75 includes the removal of peremptory challenges from the jury selection process.  Peremptory challenges were a means by which lawyers for both the prosecution and defence could dismiss a certain number of prospective jurors, without any explanation.  The number of peremptory challenges allowed to a given party depended upon the seriousness of the crime, the number of jurors and whether there are co-accused.  Some believe that this process was used to ensure a particular composition of the jury.

Under the provisions of Bill C-75, lawyers have the ability to disqualify prospective jurors that they believe cannot be impartial.  However, under the new provisions, the judge makes the final decision.  This change is meant to address a growing concern that the jury selection process may discriminate unfairly against potential jurors. 

If you have any questions regarding charges 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.

Edibles Will Be Available Mid-December

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Health Canada has recently announced that Canadians can anticipate the ability to purchase a “limited variety” of cannabis-infused edibles, cannabis extracts, vaporizable concentrates and cannabis topicals in legal stores no earlier than mid-December 2019.

On October 17, 2019, edibles will become legal in Canada (exactly one year after the first recreational cannabis store opened), however it will take time for these new cannabis products to become available for purchase.

DETAILS REGARDING NEW CANNABIS PRODUCTS AVAILABILITY

According to a new report published by Deloitte entitled “Nurturing New Growth:  Canada Gets Ready for Cannabis 2.0”, it is estimated that the new cannabis products are worth approximately $2.7 billion annually (with edibles accounting for more than half of that amount).  A number of new products, such as beverages infused with cannabidiol, will likely not be available until 2020, with the majority of products making their way to market in 2021.  

According to the law, federal licence holders must provide 60-days notice to Health Canada of their intention to sell new cannabis products. 

According to the Health Canada news release:

…as with any new regulatory framework, federally licensed processors will need time to become familiar with and prepare to comply with the new rules and to produce new products.

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

The amended regulations are the next step in our process to reduce the risks to public health and safety from edible cannabis, cannabis extracts and cannabis topicals and displace the illegal market for these products in Canada.  We are committed to working closely with the provinces and territories as well as industry in the weeks ahead to prepare for effective implementation of these new regulations.

REGULATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL CANNABIS PRODUCTS

The regulations for a single package of edibles, either food or beverage, can have no more than 10 milligrams of THC (the main psychoactive component found in cannabis).  This number is 10 times less than the amount regulated by the states that have legalized marijuana, namely California, Colorado and Washington.

There are many that are complaining that this regulation will result in a lot of packaging waste, as consumers are going to need to purchase more packages of the cannabis product.

The regulations also limits extracts to be capped at 10 mg of THC per capsule or 1,000 mg per package. 

Companies are also prohibited from using sweeteners, colourants or other ingredients that could “increase the appeal” for minors.  Whether a product would be appealing to children will depend upon its shape, colour, flavour, scent, and packaging. 

Products must only use plain packaging that is child-resistant, displays a standardized cannabis symptom and a health warning.  They must not display any claims about health benefits or nutrition.  Whether a product violates the regulations will be decided on a case-by-case basis.

According to the regulations, topicals (such as creams and make-up) will only be allowed 1,000 mg of THC per package.

Edibles and extract products are prohibited from containing nicotine, caffeine or alcohol, and must be safe to consume without refrigeration or freezing.  They must also not be associated with alcoholic beverages, tobacco products or vaping products. 

DANGER TO CHILDREN INGESTING EDIBLES

The Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program has already reported that there have been 16 cases of “adverse events” affecting children under the age of 18 involving recreational cannabis between September and December, 2018.  One of these cases involved a seven-month old baby.  Of these 16 cases, 6 of them involve children consuming edibles and one case of accidental exposure.  All of the 16 cases involve cannabis products belonging to a parent or caregiver.

The Surveillance Program defines “adverse events” as all cases in which children are harmed by cannabis consumption.  This can include injuries that may arise from the use of cannabis by another individual who is under the influence of the recreational drug.

This paediatric research is a two-year study, which will conclude in October 2020.  It will monitor trends following the legalization of edibles in the fall. 

Christina Grant, a paediatrician and co-principal investigator, stated:

These early results highlight the urgency of prioritizing the needs of children and youth in policy and education initiatives, especially as edibles become legalized later this year.

Last May, the Montreal Children’s Hospital published a warning to parents that cannabis intoxication was on the rise and children who accidentally ingest cannabis may experience more severe symptoms than adults.  Between October 2018 and May 2019, the hospital had admitted 26 children after consuming cannabis.

Debbie Friedman, hospital trauma director, stated:

Just because cannabis is legal doesn’t mean it’s safe for consumption by children and it doesn’t mean it should just be left around where it’s easily accessible to a child who’s curious, who is very attracted to the colour of gummy bears or a chocolate bar or a hash brownie.

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

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

New Changes to Animal Cruelty Laws in Canada

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP


A new law has been passed to crack down on animal cruelty in Canada.  Bill C-84, “An Act to Amend the Criminal Code Pertaining to Bestiality and Animal Fighting”, addresses many flaws that are found in the current Criminal Code with respect to animals in Canada.

WHAT IS BESTIALITY?

The new law, Bill C-84, was created partly in response to a 2016 Supreme Court of Canada decision (R. v. D.L.W.) that found a convicted sexual offender not guilty of bestiality related to charges arising out of sexual activity involving one of his stepdaughters and the family dog.

The majority of the justices of the highest court in Canada ruled that the Criminal Code provisions on bestiality did not effectively define which sexual acts with animals are illegal.  They essentially requested that the government revisit the definition.

Justice Thomas Cromwell, on behalf of the majority of the court, wrote:

Penetration has always been understood to be an essential element of bestiality.  Parliament adopted the term without adding a definition of it, and the legislative history and evolution of the relevant provisions show no intent to depart from the well-understood legal meaning of the term.  … Any expansion of criminal liability for his offence is within Parliament’s exclusive domain.

The new law specifically provides an update of the legal definition of bestiality to broaden the definition and include any contact for a sexual purpose between a person and an animal (previously there had to be evidence of penetration before charges could be made).

Anyone convicted of bestiality in Canada will now be added to Canada’s National Sex Offenders Registry and can be banned from owning animals. 

According to the CEO of Humane Canada, Barbara Cartwright:

Many studies have proven a clear link between animal abuse and child abuse, so adding convicted animal abusers to the National Sex Offenders Registry protects children as well as animals.

HOW WILL THE LAW CHANGE REGARDING ANIMAL FIGHTING?

The new legislation will prohibit promoting or profiting from fighting or baiting animals, as well as breeding or training animals to fight.  The law also prohibits the building or maintaining of any arena established for the purpose of animal fighting. 

Furthermore, the new law applies to anyone who “in any manner encourages, aids, promotes, arranges, assists, receives money for or takes part in the fighting or baiting of animals.”

There is currently a growing trend of animal fighting, which occurs covertly and online.  This trend is also increasingly linked to guns and gangs.

One incredibly dreadful activity is called “trunking”, whereby two dogs are sealed together in the trunk of a car.  The car is driven around as the dogs fight to the death.  Eventually the car is stopped, and the results of the dog fight is revealed to an online audience.

There are several other important elements found in Bill C-84 to protect animals in Canada that include:

  • Granting a judge the discretion to make an order banning an offender from owning or living with an animal for a period of time up to a lifetime ban;
  • Granting a judge the ability to order the offender to make financial restitution to a person or organization that cared for an animal which was harmed by an offence;
  • Repealing a section of the Criminal Code that required a peace officer to seize and destroy any animals found fighting in a cockpit.

“FREE WILLY” BILL ALSO PASSES IN CANADA

The government has also passed Bill S-203, “The Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act”, often referred to as the “Free Willy Act”.  This law phases out the captivity of cetaceans (i.e. whales, dolphins and porpoises) in Canada, except for rescues, rehabilitation, licensed scientific research or in the cetaceans’ best interests.  

The new law also prohibits the trade, possession, capture and breeding of cetaceans.  Those acting in contravention of the new law may be fined up to $200,000.

The law does provide an exception for those that are taking care of an injured or distressed animal in need of assistance.  Also, researchers must obtain a license from the government in order to hold a cetacean for research purposes.

The Vancouver Aquarium and Marineland in Niagara Falls are the only two facilities in Canada that are allowed to house cetaceans and keep the animals that they have as long as they do not breed them.  The Vancouver Aquarium has a Pacific white-sided dolphin and Marineland has an orca and more than 50 beluga whales.

Lori Marino of the Whale Sanctuary Project wrote in her statement about the new law:

This is a major victory for cetaceans.  They are among the most cognitively complex of all animals.  Confining them to life in a concrete tank is truly unbearable for them.

If you have any questions regarding charges that have been laid against you or regarding 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.

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.