Toronto Criminal Lawyers Blog

Bill C-55, which came into force on August 1^st, 1997, made significant changes to Canada’s Dangerous Offender legislation. This legislation allows the government of Canada to detain indefinitely those offenders found by the court to qualify as “dangerous”. The 1997 reforms made it much easier for the Crown Attorney’s Office to secure a dangerous offender designation. At the same time, Bill C-55 introduced a new legislative designation known as the Long Term Offender Designation.  This designation gave Crown Attorneys a more moderate option for dealing with the special concerns raised by long term offenders without resorting to the serious measures imposed by a dangerous offender designation. This also gave criminal defence lawyers an alternative option to suggest to the court as a compromise to avoid dangerous offender designations in the most serious of cases. In the majority of cases, however, criminal defence lawyers will do their upmost to avoid both dangerous offender and long term offender designations for their clients.

The long-term offender designation may only be made following the individual’s conviction for a serious personal injury offence. The term “serious personal injury offence” is defined in s. 752 of the Code as an offence that endangers, or could potentially endanger, another person’s life, safety, or psychological well-being. This category would include aggravated assault, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, or sexual assault of a minor. The Crown may apply for a long-term offender designation after an individual is found guilty of a personal injury offence but before he or she is sentenced. In addition, according to s. 753(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada, if an application for dangerous offender designation is denied, the court may consider imposing a long term offender designation at that time (in the alternative, they may choose to impose a traditional determinate sentence). A dangerous offender application made be made up to six months following the sentencing of an individual for a serious personal injury crime.

Though long term offenders cannot be given indeterminate sentences as dangerous offenders are, the designation requires that the individual be under long-term supervision and allows the court to return the individual to prison following their release if certain conditions are not met. Section 753.1(3) creates a sentencing regime for long-term offender. Upon designating an individual a long-term offender, the court must impose a sentence for the offence for which the offender has been convicted of a minimum of two years duration and order that the offender be subject to long-term community supervision for up to ten years after his or her release. If the long-term offender breaks his or her order of supervision, he or she will be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years.

Section 753.1(1) lists the requirements for a long-term offender designation. The Crown must prove all of the following requirements before the court will designate the individual a long-term offender:

• A sentence of two years or more would be appropriate for the crime committed,
• The offender is likely to reoffend, and
• There is a “reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk to the community”.

Likelihood to reoffend is assumed pursuant to s. 753.1(2) for all those offenders who are convicted of an offence of a sexual nature or offenders whose records disclose a pattern of violent behaviour.

An application for long-term offender designation must be approved by the Attorney General of the province. The offender is given seven days notice of the application during which the offender and his or her criminal defence lawyer must prepare a defence to the allegation that the individual is a long-term offender. The application will be determined in a special proceeding heard by judge alone without a jury. Character evidence, usually excluded at trial because of its inherent unreliability, is allowed if the court deems it relevant to establishing whether or not the individual qualifies as a long-term offender. Under section 758, the accused must be present at the hearing unless exceptional circumstances make his or her attendance impossible (for example, the accused may be expelled from the courtroom because of violent or uncontrollable behaviour). The accused individual and his or her criminal defence lawyer will have the opportunity to defend against the charge that the accused should be labeled a long-term offender. If found to be a long-term offender, the accused may appeal his designation pursuant to s. 759 of the Code.

By-line:

This guest post is contributed by Stephanie DiGiuseppe. She can be reached at stephaniedigiuseppe@gmail.com.

There is no explicit prohibition against “prostitution” in the Criminal Code of Canada. In other words, the specific act of engaging in sexual activity for money or any other form of consideration is not itself illegal. However, there are several offences associated with prostitution, which do attract criminal liability.

The majority of prostitution-related offences relate to solicitation in a public place. For example, s. 213 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to

• stop or attempt to stop a motor vehicle,
• impede the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic,
• enter or leave a premises adjacent to a pedestrian walkway or vehicular motorway, or
• stop or attempt to stop a person

in a public place or a place open to public view for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or obtaining the services of a prostitute. According to s. 213, a public place includes any place to which the public has access by right (e.g., streets, parks, public buildings). However, a “public place” also includes a place where the public has access by invitation such as a bar or club. The part of the provision relating to a “place open to the public view” makes it an offence to engage in certain prohibited conduct in the interior of a car located on a public street.

It is also an offence under section 210 of the Criminal Code to keep or use a “common bawdy-house” and under section 211 to transport a person to a bawdy-house. Section 210 catches both individuals who use the bawdy-house, in other words people who attend at the bawdy-house in order to obtain sexual services, and individuals who “keep” a bawdy-house. “Keep” is defined in the Criminal Code to include almost every person associated with the business of the bawdy-house: the owner, any employees or assistants, anyone acting on behalf of the owner, and managers.

The Criminal Code defines a “bawdy-house” as “a place that is kept or occupied, or resorted to by one or more persons, for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency.” Based on this definition, the laws relating to a common bawdy-house make it an offence to engage in prostitution in a private dwelling, if that dwelling can be said to fit the definition of a bawdy-house. The definition is so broad that most acts of prostitution occurring in private dwellings will be caught by this law. Everything from a single individual living alone selling sexual services to a traditional arrangement where several women live together under the supervision of a “pimp” or “madam” would fall under the definition of a “bawdy-house”. Thus, in conjunction, sections 211 and 212 dealing with prostitution in private dwellings and section 213 dealing with prostitution in public places together criminalize almost every transaction leading up to an act of prostitution, even though they do not criminalize the actual exchange of sexual services for money.

Section 212 of the Criminal Code also makes it an offence to “live of the avails of prostitution”. This provision catches any person who shares in a prostitute’s earnings. Owners of bawdy-houses and pimps are commonly charged with offences under this provision. Living off the avails of prostitution is considered a relatively serious offence and can carry a jail sentence of up to ten years. There exists in law a rebuttable presumption that any person who cohabits with a prostitute, is in the habitual company of a prostitute, or lives in a common-bawdy house is “living on the avails of prostitution”. “Rebuttable presumption” is a legal term that means that if the Crown Attorney can adduce evidence to show that an individual is living in one of the three scenarios described above the court will assume that that individual lives off the avails of prostitution, unless the accused individual’s criminal defence lawyer can successfully introduce evidence that refutes that assumption. This rebuttable presumption only applies to individuals who receive a direct portion of the prostitute’s earnings. It does not apply to indirect profiting, so it would not catch the child or family member living with a prostitute.

Section 212 also creates a number of offences relating to the procurement of prostitutes. These provisions are generally considered the most serious provisions in the Criminal Code. Procurement offences relate to the act of persuading or forcing another individual to become a prostitute. This would encompass a variety of situations. For example, offences related to human trafficking (bringing people into Canada to work as prostitutes, or selling human beings for consideration) would be caught under this provision. Situations where an employer requires or attempts to require his or her employee to have sexual relations with a client or business partner would also fall under the category of procurement. Finally, any act by which one individual entices, controls, persuades or influences another person to engage in prostitution would be an offence under the procurement legislation.

Purchasing or procuring the sexual services of an individual under the age of eighteen is also a serious offence in Canada. Issues dealing with minors are explicitly dealt with in section 212(4). This section states that every person who, in any place, purchases the sexual services of a person who is under the age of eighteen is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a maximum of five years imprisonment. This offence also carries a mandatory minimum jail sentence of six months. The law is clear that exchanging money or any form of consideration for the sexual services of a person under the age of eighteen is a criminal offence. There are no special rules relating to public places or bawdy-houses; it is always illegal to purchase the services of a prostitute under the age of eighteen. Living off the proceeds of prostitution of a person who is under the age of eighteen carries a maximum sentence of fourteen years and a mandatory minimum sentence of two years. Moreover, the combined offences of living of the avails of prostitution of a person under the age of eighteen and procuring that individual to engage in prostitution through counseling, compulsion, threats, intimidation, or coercion carries a five year mandatory minimum sentence and a fourteen year maximum sentence.

In Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that s. 213 does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Though the Charter guarantees every individual freedom of expression, the Supreme Court held that the law against solicitation for the purposes of prostitution in a public place was a constitutionally justifiable limit on the right to freedom of speech. In the same decision, the court indicated that s. 213 does not breach a number of other Constitutional rights that were raised: including the s. 15 equality guarantee and the s. 7 right to “life, liberty and security of the person”.

Nonetheless, a group of Toronto criminal defence lawyers and sex workers are currently challenging the laws against prostitution in the Supreme Court of Canada. The applicants claim that the laws against keeping a common bawdy-house force them and thousands of women like them out of the safety of their homes and on to the streets where they are vulnerable to violence and abuse. They are arguing that by forcing them to work in situations where they are prone to physical and psychological violence the legislation violates their right to security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter. They are also arguing that the prohibition against soliciting for the purpose of prostitution infringes their right to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, by limiting their ability to communicate with others for the purpose of prostitution. However, the primary argument the team of lawyers and sex workers challenging the law are raising is that if prostitution was legal and properly regulated, prostitutes would be safer.

Recent events such as the case of serial killer Robert Pickton, known colloquially as the “pig farmer”, have drawn public attention to the issues and dangers facing prostitutes and sex workers in Canada. Pickton was convicted of murdering six women and accused of murdering many more at his farm in northern British Columbia. He was said to pray on prostitutes and drug users from Vancouver’s downtown eastside who he considered easy targets. However, the Pickton case is just one egregious example of the violence inflicted on prostitutes forced to work on the street with little supervision or protection. Between 1991 and 2005, there were 116 known prostitution-related murders in Canada. Rape and assault are also common dangers faced by prostitutes. However, there are arguments on both sides, and the Attorney General’s office argues that the legalization of solicitation for the purpose of prostitution and the keeping of a common bawdy-house would legitimize exploitation and proliferate the problems posed by prostitution, instead of keeping prostitutes safe.

The applicants in the current constitutional challenge have not suggested changing the laws relating to minors or the laws relating to procurement. Thus, the only form of prostitution that will be legal if the challenge is successful is the freely chosen and consensual selling of sex by individuals over the age of eighteen. The constitutional challenge was heard by the Supreme Court in October of 2009 and a decision is expected some point later this year. 

Call Kostman and Pyzer, Barristers, Toronto defence lawyers who you can trust.

None of us want to be in such a situation, but if you are accused of a crime for any reason, the first thing to do is hire a good criminal lawyer, someone who will protect your rights and ensure that you get justice. The process of choosing a lawyer is extremely important because your life may be at stake depending on the type of crime you’re accused of, so even if you’re not in a position to find a good lawyer, your friends and family members could take the following steps on your behalf:

• Don’t choose the first lawyer in the book: In our haste to retain the services of a lawyer, most of us end up choosing the first name in the book even though we have no idea how good a lawyer the person is. In general, it’s best to go with someone you know, and if this is not a possibility, then ask friends and family members to recommend people they trust.
• Choose according to your case: Find a lawyer who is experienced in dealing with the kind of cases that deal with the crime that you are accused of. You don’t want someone who has dealt only with civil cases taking on your criminal case or vice versa. Do your research before you hire or you’re going to regret your decision at a later stage. Ask them about similar cases they’ve handled and about the outcome of these cases.
• Talk specifics before you hire: Your lawyer does have your best interests at heart, but that does not mean you should hire him/her without talking about the costs involved in handling your case. You don’t want to be hit with hidden costs that add to the financial and emotional burdens you’re already going through.
• Discuss the case: Ask questions about the case, what processes are involved, how long it’s going to take to complete, how your life is going to be affected by the case, and how much time your lawyer will be able to devote to your case. You don’t want to hire a lawyer only to never see him/her during its course. Also ensure that they themselves will be responsible for handling the case instead of deputising their subordinates to do most of the work.
• Choose someone you’re comfortable with: And finally, you must be able to trust your lawyer with the truth, so if you’re not comfortable with the first person you’ve chosen, don’t hesitate to find someone else.

By-line:

This guest post is contributed by Brooklyn White, who writes on the topic of Forensic Science Technician Schools . She can be reached at brooklyn.09white-AT-Gmail.com.

The jury system is one of the most fundamental institutions in Canada’s criminal justice system. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms every person has the right to be tried by a jury of their peers. The jury is seen as an impartial way of determining whether or not the accused person is guilty.

In the context of the trial of a criminal allegation, the jury is composed of 12 individuals called “jurors”. Jurors are selected at random from the population. In order to be eligible for jury selection an individual need only be a Canadian citizen over the age of 19.  However, you will be disqualified from serving as a juror if you are a police officer, lawyer, trustee in bankruptcy, employee of the Ministry of the Attorney General or if you have been convicted of certain criminal offences within the last five years. You may also be exempted from jury duty if you meet certain qualifications such as if you are a student or if you suffer from a health condition that impairs your ability to be a juror. Exemptions are decided on a case-by-case basis. Jurors will then undergo a “jury selection process”. During the selection process, jurors may be asked specific questions by the Crown Attorney and the accused individual’s criminal defence lawyer. The lawyers will either approve the person for the jury or “challenge” their presence on the jury, in which case they will not be selected to sit in the jury.

The twelve members of the jury are sworn to render an impartial verdict as to whether an individual is guilty or not guilty of a crime. The jury is charged with determining all questions of fact (such as “was the defendant in a certain location at a particular time” or “did the defendant in fact hit the victim”?) while the judge retains the duty of determining questions of law (such as “is the defence of self-defence available to the accused in these circumstances” “what kind of behaviour qualifies as negligence under the law”). The judge will instruct the jury on issues of law and the jury will try to determine the actual events that transpired and whether they give rise to the alleged offence.

The jury will hear all the evidence which is admissible against the accused person and render a decision in the matter. They will sit in the courtroom at all times when admissible evidence is adduced, and will hear testimony from witnesses, view physical evidence, and receive instructions from the judge on the relevant law. At the end of the trial, the jury will be sequestered in a room to deliberate as to their verdict. The jury must reach a unanimous verdict. When a jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict it is known as a “hung jury”. In the case of a hung jury, a mistrial will be declared and the case may be retried before a new jury. In all other cases, the jury will render a verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty”. A person is never found to be “innocent” of a crime, the jury will simply conclude that there is not enough evidence to find the person guilty and render a verdict of “not guilty”.

During the course of the trial, jurors have a duty to avoid learning about the trial from outside sources such as the media, family or friends. They are not allowed to conduct their own investigation into the crime by speaking to witnesses or collecting evidence outside of the courtroom. They must decide the case based on the facts that have been presented to them during the course of the trial. During the deliberation process this duty is heightened. During deliberation, the jury cannot have contact with any individual other than the other jurors. They are denied access to the media and cannot even phone family or friends until a verdict has been reached. They cannot ask to speak with the accused individual, the Crown Attorney, the criminal defence lawyer or the judge. If they do, this will be seen as a reversible error, meaning that the court of appeal will be forced to order a retrial. In Canada, jurors also have a legal duty to keep the contents of their deliberations secret. They cannot reveal the opinions of other jurors or anything that was said behind closed doors even after the verdict is rendered. This is not the case in the United States where jurors can talk about the contents of their deliberation after the final verdict is rendered. As such, you will sometimes hear American jurors speak to the media about the trials in which they’ve participated. In Canada, if a juror were to do so, he or she could be charged with contempt of court, a criminal offence.

A “head juror”, known as the “foreman”, leads the jury. The foreman is ordinarily chosen before the beginning of their deliberations. The foreman has the duty of asking questions on behalf of the jury. The jury may require clarification on a point of law from the judge and it will fall to the foreman to ask for this information. The foreman is also responsible for reading the verdict in open court once the jury has completed its deliberation.

Every Canadian has a right to choose to be tried by a jury if they are accused of an indictable offence that carries a maximum penalty of five or more years of imprisonment. The process of choosing to be tried by jury is known an “election”. The election is a choice, and, in most cases, an accused person is free to choose to be tried by judge alone. An individual may not choose to be tried by jury if they are accused of a minor offence. That is because these offences are very common and do not result in harsh penalties. Though the jury system is important, it comes at great cost and can be very disruptive for the lives of the individuals who have been chosen as jurors. For this reason, under Canadian law, juries are reserved for the more serious indictable offences. For the most serious offences such as treason or murder the individual must be tried by both judge and jury under s. 469 of the Criminal Code of Canada, unless both the defendant and Crown Attorney agree that judge alone is sufficient. Electing to be tried by jury is a personal decision that you should discus with your criminal defence lawyer prior to making a formal election.

Trust Kostman and Pyzer, Barristers if you are in need of a Toronto criminal lawyer!

Before 1982, it was permissible for criminal defence lawyers to attack the credibility of complainants in sexual assault cases by asking them questions about their sexual history. Criminal defence lawyers would ask these questions to suggest that the complainant might be lying about the alleged rape. Criminal defence lawyers routinely use a witness’s past behaviour to attack their credibility on the witness stand; as such, the credibility of a witness is an important issue at any trial. If a criminal defence lawyer can establish that a material witness has a tendency to lie or if the lawyer can expose a motive why he or she may be lying now, this will undermine the Crown’s case and often lead to an acquittal.

However, in the 1980s the government was very concerned with the ability of defence lawyers to question complainants in sexual assault cases about their sexual history. Though both men and woman can be complainants in sexual assault cases, the government was primarily concerned about questioning women because it felt that questions about a woman’s sexual history may play on the stereotypes and prejudices of judges or juries. The main concern was that these questions may lead the judge or jury to acquit a defendant based on what the Supreme Court of Canada referred to as the “Twin Myths”. The myths are that (i) a woman who is sexually experienced is less credible as a witness and/or (ii) a woman who is sexually experienced is more likely to have consented to the sexual activity in question. The government felt that there was a danger that juries and judges may be acquitting defendants based on these two stereotypical assumptions, rather than based on the merits of the evidence before the court.

As a result, Parliament responded in 1982 by enacting section 276 and 277 of the Criminal Code of Canada. These two provisions together came to be known as the “rape shield legislation”. In 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada declared that the original rule was unconstitutional in a case called R. v. Seaboyer. In Seaboyer the court said that the rape shield legislation, as drafted, was in danger of excluding potentially relevant evidence and in doing so hindered the defendant’s ability to make full answer and defence. Since the ability to make full answer and defence is protected by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, legislation that interferes with a defendant’s ability to make full answer and defence violates the Charter. When legislation violates the Charter the court is entitled to declare that the legislation is “of no force and effect”. This means that it will be rendered inoperative unless the government chooses to remove the unconstitutional parts.

Of primary concern to the court in Seaboyer was the potential that the rape shield legislation could make it impossible for defendants to establish the defence of “honest mistaken belief in consent”. This defence rests on the idea that the accused may honestly but mistakenly have believed that the complainant was consenting to the sexual act in question. If the defendant is able raise a reasonable doubt as to his intention to commit sexual assault on the basis that he honestly believed the complainant was consenting, he is not guilty under law and is entitled to an acquittal. The defendant may legitimately believe that the complainant consented based on the sexual history that existed between the complainant and defendant at some other time or place. Nonetheless, s. 276 would bar the criminal defence lawyer from questioning the complainant about any such past event. This is problematic as it deprives the defendant of a legitimate defence.

The court was also concerned by the rape shield legislation because it undermines the right of criminal defence lawyers to attack the credibility of the complainant by proving  that the complainant is biased or has a motive to lie about the evidence. For example, in the American case of State v. Jalo the defendant was a father who discovered his daughter and son having sex. The father stopped them and, out of malice, the daughter accused him of raping her. Had this case happened in Canada evidence of the daughter’s past sexual act with her brother would be excluded under the rape shield legislation, even though this fact is extremely relevant to the case because it showed that the daughter had a motive to lie. Moreover, it would be impossible for the criminal defence lawyer to properly explain the father’s defence with any force or credibility without questioning the daughter about the incident. The court concluded that the Rape Shield Legislation therefore has the potential to deny a defendant the building blocks of his or her defence undermining his right to make full answer and defence.

As a result the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the rape shield legislation saying that it was too broad, in that it prevented defendants from asking the complainant legitimate and relevant questions about his or her sexual history.

The government responded to Seaboyer by rewording the rape shield legislation. Now, the rape shield legislation creates a procedure intended to eliminate elements of surprise and needless exposure of the complainant to inappropriate questioning. . A strict procedure must be followed whenever an accused seeks to tender evidence under s. 276(2):

1. 1. Application in writing specifying in a detailed way the particulars of the evidence and why the defence claims it is relevant to an issue at trial.
2. 2. If notice requirements are met and the trial judge believes that the potential evidence is capable of being admissible under s. 276(2), then, a voir dire is held in to determine the admissibility of a particular line of questioning. The complainant cannot be compelled to testify at the voire dire. However, the defence, must at minimum establish that such an inquiry should be allowed due to specific concerns. This is problematic because it may alert the Crown to the details of the defence’s argument in an attempt to get evidence into the trial.
3. 3. If the application succeeds the trial judge must give mandatory reasons and specific reference must be made to the factors in s. 276(3).

In R. v. Darrach the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that s. 276 is constitutional. According to the court, “the current s. 276 categorically prohibits evidence of a complainant’s sexual history only when it is used to support one of two general inferences. They are that a person is more likely to have consented to the sexual assault and that she is less credible as a witness by virtue of her prior sexual experience. Evidence of sexual activity may be admissible, however, to substantiate other inferences…” Based on this finding, the court found that the new legislation did not interfere with the defendant’s ability to make full answer and defence. As such, it does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Despite the ruling in Darrach that the new process set up in the amended s. 276 is constitutional, there are still some ways in which the new s. 276 is problematic for criminal defence lawyers. For example, while the old s. 276 only prohibited questioning about sexual activity with an individual other than the accused, the new s. 276 refers to sexual activity with the accused or with any other person. Thus, the new s. 276 is, in some ways, wider in scope than the old provision. The new provision creates a presumption that evidence of prior sexual conduct between the accused and complainant is inadmissible. This evidence can only be admitted if it passes through the special process created by s. 276 and it is deemed admissible by the trial judge.

The restriction on admitting evidence of the sexual history between the defendant and complainant causes some interesting situations to occur at trial. It can be extremely hard for the judge or jury to understand what happened in a particular case if the accused is prevented from leading evidence of the sexual relationship up to that point. Essentially, s. 276 often forces criminal defence lawyers to present the human relationship to the court in abstraction, placing it before the judge or jury as a discrete event happening at a particular place or time without any evidence of the events leading up to the alleged sexual assault or the sexual nature of the relationship between the accused and the complainant prior to the assault.

The special procedure created by s. 276 is unique to Canadian law. Several lower court decisions suggest that it should be changed to only prohibit evidence that leads the court to base their decision on stereotypical inferences. Moreover, as the general public’s stereotypes and opinions change, the danger that judges or juries will base their decisions on the “twin myths” decreases. Several legal scholars, such as David Paciocco, suggest that evidence of prior sexual history with the accused should be admitted under s. 176(2) if the defendant can establish that a specific inference could be drawn from the evidence that would be relevant to an issue at trial. This change would respect the dignity of complainants during cross-examination while still allowing the defence to put forward relevant arguments based on the sexual history between the accused and the complainant.

Kostman and Pyzer, Barristers. Toronto defence lawyers you can trust!

Entrapment

Entrapment is one of the many defences available in the criminal justice system. However, criminal defence lawyers will only pursue a defence of entrapment if the facts suggest that this defence may be successful. Only rarely will the facts of the case support a defence of entrapment.

All defences are split into two categories: excuses and justifications. Justification defences are defences the accused can raise to show that he or she did the right thing in the circumstances and should therefore not be punished. The best example of this is self-defence. Defendants who raise an excuse defence, on the other hand, admit that they committed a crime and acted immorally, but assert that they have an excuse for the way they acted. A good example of an excuse defence is mental illness. Entrapment is also an example of an excuse defence. This means that when a defendant raises a defence of entrapment, they admit to committing the crime in question, however, they argue that they have a reasonable excuse for their conduct.

The idea behind entrapment is that the individual was enticed or provoked into committing a crime by the police. When the police overstep their duty to investigate crime and instead initiate or create a crime, the defence may arise. The rationale behind the defence is that it constitutes abuse of process on the part of the Crown prosecute an individual, if his or her crime was motivated by police instigation. As a result, if the defence can establish entrapment, the court will stay the proceedings against you. The result of a stay is that the case against you cannot proceed, no guilty conviction is entered against you and the incident will not appear on your criminal record.

A defence of entrapment tends to be available on charges relating to drugs or prostitution. The general scenario is that the police will have an undercover agent approach an individual soliciting sex or trying to buy drugs. If the individual agrees to purchase sex or sell drugs, the police will then arrest them on charges of solicitation for the purposes of prostitution or trafficking in narcotics. If the police conduct reached the point that they are actively encouraging an individual who would not ordinarily have committed a crime to commit an illegal act, the defence of entrapment may become available.

The defence of entrapment was successfully raised in the case of R. v. Mack. Mack was a former drug addict who had reformed and given up drugs with the help of yoga. Nonetheless, police officers decided to target Mack in an undercover operation to search for evidence of drug trafficking. The police enlisted two confidential informants to contact Mack. The informants approached Mack asking for drugs, but he refused to sell them. Later, the informants followed Mack to a yoga retreat while still undercover and harassed him to arrange a drug deal for them. Mack still refused to be involved in any form of drug transaction. Finally, the confidential informants took Mack on a walk in the woods, where they told him that their “people” were coming into town today and needed drugs. The informants told Mack that their people would be very “upset” if Mack could not get them the drugs. Then, the confidential informants showed Mack a pistol and said, “someone could really get lost out here in the woods”. Following that threatening statement, Mack relented and agreed to procure a large amount of cocaine for them. Mack showed up at the arranged transaction spot, was shown a suitcase of money, and made the exchange. Unbeknownst to Mack, the two men he was making the drug exchange with were undercover police officers. Following the exchange, Mack was arrested.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the defence of entrapment to succeed in Mack and stayed the proceedings against him. The court emphatically explained that the police should not engage in “random virtue testing” of the population. By this the court meant that the police should not test the virtue of individual citizens by offering them the opportunity to commit a crime at random. When the police do this, they seem to create crime and then arrest people for the crimes they create. The individual arrested may never have committed a crime in his or her life if not for his or her interactions with the police. Such conduct on the part of the police offends our justice system’s fundamental values of justice and fairness.

In Mack the Supreme Court laid down a test to determine when entrapment has occurred. At the first stage of the test, the court asks whether the police have targeted individuals based on a reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in crime or through involvement in a bona fide investigation. According to the court, anything short of reasonable suspicion or a bona fide investigation would constitute random virtue testing. A bona fide investigation is an authorized investigation in a targeted area. For example, the police can target a particular area if they have reasonable grounds to believe criminal activity is prevalent there; however, they cannot walk the streets at random posing as civilians and trying to encourage individuals to commit crimes. If the police target an individual who they do not have reasonable grounds to suspect is involved in criminal activity or they target random people outside the context of a bona fide investigation, the defence of entrapment will operate to stay the proceedings against the defendant.

Even if the first part of the test is not met, the defence of entrapment may still be available to the defendant under step two of the test from Mack. At step two, the court must consider a number of factors to determine whether the police manipulated or directed the defendant to commit the crime. The court refers to this as “planting the seed of crime” within the individual. The idea is that, by “planting the seed of crime”, the police cause a person who may never have committed a crime to engage in criminal activity. In the case of Mack, the court determined that even though the police had reasonable grounds to suspect that Mack may be involved in criminal activity, they went so far as to “plant the seed of crime within him”; thus, the court allowed the defence of entrapment under the second branch of the test.
In Mack the court lists a number of factors to help determine whether the police crossed the line and “planted the seed of crime”.

The list of factors for the court to consider are as follows:
• the type of crime being investigated and the availability of other techniques for police detection of its commission;
• whether an average person, with both strengths and weaknesses, in the position of the accused would be induced into the commission of a crime;
• the persistence and number of attempts made by the police before the accused agreed to committing the offence;
• the type of inducement used by the police including: deceit, fraud, trickery or reward;
• the timing of the police conduct, in particular whether the police have instigated the offence or became involved in ongoing criminal activity;
• whether the police conduct involves an exploitation of human characteristics such as the emotions of compassion, sympathy and friendship;
• whether the police appear to have exploited a particular vulnerability of a person such as a mental handicap or a substance addiction;
• the proportionality between the police involvement, as compared to the accused, including an assessment of the degree of harm caused or risked by the police, as compared to the accused, and the commission of any illegal acts by the police themselves;
• the existence of any threats, implied or express, made to the accused by the police or their agents; and
• whether the police conduct is directed at undermining other constitutional values.

The court will look at these factors to determine whether or not to stay the proceedings due to entrapment.

Make sure that you are represented by competent criminal defence lawyers. Call Kostman and Pyzer, Barristers.

A paralegal is a individual who is not a lawyer, but who is licensed to undertake specific forms of legal work.  For example, paralegals often assist lawyers. In addition, paralegals are licensed to perform certain types of legal work without the direction or supervision of a lawyer.

Paralegals operating in Ontario must be licensed by the Law Society of Upper Canada. Once licensed, a paralegal may practice in specific areas of law. According to Law Society By-Law 4, a paralegal can represent an individual:

• • In Small Claims Court,
• • In the Ontario Court of Justice in respect of a charge under the Provincial Offences Act (e.g., a speeding ticket or traffic ticket),
• • On a summary conviction charge under the Criminal Code for which the maximum penalty does not exceed 6 months imprisonment, and
• • Before administrative tribunals (e.g., Financial Services Commission of Ontario which deals with Pension and Insurance cases)

However, the powers of a paralegal representing a person in one of the above-mentioned proceedings are limited. The paralegal cannot do all the things that a criminal defence lawyer operating in the same proceeding would be capable of doing. The scope of the paralegals powers allow the paralegal to:

• • Give legal advice concerning legal interests, rights or responsibilities with respect to a proceeding or on the subject matter of a proceeding,
• • Draft or assist with drafting of documents for use in the proceeding, and
• • Negotiate on behalf of a person who is a party to a proceeding.

Though a paralegal can give advice or draft documents, they may do so only with respect to a specific proceeding. A paralegal cannot give general legal advice or draft general legal documents (such as a will or contract).

To become a licensed paralegal, an individual must have graduated from a legal services program approved by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities within the three years prior to the date that they apply to be licensed. The legal services program must have included a minimum of 18 courses on legal services with the permitted scope of the practice of a paralegal, a course of ethics and professional responsibility, and a internship/ field placement in a legal environment (such as a courthouse or law firm) for a minimum of 120 hours. Qualifying legal services programs are the “court and tribunal agent” programs offered at community colleges and the “paralegal” programs often offered at private career colleges. After June 2010, all applicants will be required to have graduated from an accredited legal services program. To date, the law society has accredited ten college paralegal programs. All applicants must write a licensing examination in order to become a licensed paralegal.

To become a paralegal, applicants must also satisfy a “good character requirement”.  Generally, you can satisfy this requirement by providing the Law Society with a police clearance check or reference.

Paralegals tend to specialize in a legal niche whereas lawyers are given a more holistic training. As a result, lawyers tend to analyze facts and develop legal strategies, whereas paralegals are generally responsible for carrying out specific tasks required to put those strategies into action. The most important difference between a lawyer and a paralegal is that a lawyer can give legal advice. A paralegal, on the other hand, can give advice pertaining to the specific task at hand (“I suggest you fill out this form”) but not general advice (“if you do this, you will not be liable”).

If you are charged with a criminal offence, retain a criminal defence lawyer from Kostman and Pyzer, Barristers, for effective legal representation.

During the course of a criminal trial the prosecution may try to lead character evidence about the accused individual. For legal purposes, the word “character” refers to a generalized description of a person’s disposition, or that person’s disposition in respect of a general trait such as honesty, temperance or peacefulness. Character evidence is evidence that indicates that the defendant has acted a specific way before, for example dishonestly or violently, and asks the jury to infer that that prior behaviour allows for a  a negative inference to be drawn in respect to an accused’s character with respect to a particular trait. The jury is then asked to specifically infer that that the defendant acted in accordance with that character trait in the incident before the court.

As a general rule, courts will not allow the prosecution to lead evidence about the character of the defendant during the course of his or her criminal trial. The danger, as the court perceives it, is that the jury will use evidence of the defendant’s bad character to infer that the defendant is guilty. There is no logical connection between a person having a bad character and that same person having committed the particular crime at issue. The truth is that lots of people display negative characteristics such as anger, aggression, sexual deviance, dishonesty or selfishness but never commit crimes. However, it is human nature that a jury presented with evidence that a defendant possesses some of these characteristics may be prejudiced against the defendant. Such prejudice could cloud the jury’s judgment and cause them to enter a guilty verdict where one is unsupported by the facts. Because of this, character evidence is generally inadmissible.

There are, however, four exceptions to the rule that character evidence is inadmissible at trial.

The first exception to the rule against character evidence is that the evidence is relevant to a material issue at trial. If the evidence is relevant to a material issue then the jury is not being asked to use evidence of the defendant’s bad character to infer that the defendant is guilty. Rather, the evidence is being tendered because it does directly support another issue in the case. For example, in R. v. Merz, the accused and his wife were in a heated argument that ended with the wife being shot three times. Merz’s defence was that his son had fired the first fatal shot and that he had picked up the gun and fired the second two shots in an effort to shield his son from criminal prosecution. The prosecution maintained that Merz fired all three shots. As part of their case against him, the prosecution relied on the testimony of two witnesses who stated that the victim told them that the defendant had made death threats against her in the past. The evidence was admitted and Merz was convicted at trial. On appeal, Merz argued that the trial judge should have told the jury that they could not use evidence of the previous threats to infer that the defendant was a violent person and therefore more likely to have murdered the deceased. The judge in the appellate court found that the trial judge was correct in admitting evidence of the statements because those statements were not intended to create an inference that the accused was a bad person. Rather, the more natural and powerful inference to be made from the testimony is that the defendant had motive to kill his wife. Even though such statements may have had a secondary role as character evidence, their more significant role in the trial was to lend support to the material issue of motive and for that reason the court could admit them as an exception to the rule against character evidence.

The second exception to the rule against character evidence occurs when the accused leads good character evidence that “puts his or her character at issue”.  Usually the defendant would want to refrain from putting his or her character at issue as this opens the door to allow the prosecution to tender negative character evidence. However, if the accused is of particularly good character or reputation, he or she may choose to enter character evidence to suggest either that his or her testimony is credible and reliable or to suggest that it is unlikely that he or she would have committed the crime. When the accused leads good character evidence to support either or these propositions, the court will allow the prosecution to admit negative character evidence in the interest of fairness so that the evidence is not unfairly or inaccurately skewed in favour of the accused.

The third exception to the rule against character evidence is similar act evidence. Similar act evidence is evidence that the defendant has committed a similar crime or acted similarly in the past. For example, if the defendant is on trial for rape, similar act evidence could consist of evidence that the defendant had raped women in the past using the method indicated in the evidence before the court pertaining to the case at hand. Criminal defence lawyers are very wary of similar act evidence. Practitioners will often say that the decision to admit similar act evidence is as close as a judge will usually come to usurping the role of the jury and making a decision on the outcome of the case. This is because similar act evidence is very prejudicial. The judge’s decision to admit similar act evidence will have profound repercussions on the case. If this type of evidence is admitted improperly a serious miscarriage of justice may occur.

In R. v. Handy the Supreme Court of Canada set out clear guidelines to determine when the court should admit similar act evidence. Here the court cautioned that “there being no offence of being a bad person” the criminal justice system does not “try people for who they are but for what they have done”. However, it pointed out, that principle clashes with another common sense proposition, which is that one of the best ways of determining what a person did on one occasion, is to know how he or she has acted on occasions where the circumstances were similar. The test from R. v. Handy asks the court to consider whether the evidence suggests a propensity to act a certain way with sufficient precision to make the evidence worth receiving despite its prejudicial effect. The court starts from the position that the evidence is inadmissible. The court then considers the similar act evidence. Evidence which suggests a general propensity to engage in the behaviour before the court is insufficient to admit the evidence. For example, in a rape case evidence of past sexual deviance or even past rapes would be insufficient. Specific propensity is required. To continue with the rape example, a specific repeated series of actions or a specific victim profile may be sufficiently precise to suggest the evidence should be admitted. In order to determine whether the evidence is precise enough the court will consider “the objective improbability of coincidence”. In other words, the likelihood that the similar act evidence and the evidence in the case at bar could be the same and not have been committed by the same person. For example, in a sexual assault case, the complainant states that she was drugged at a nightclub, raped and then released. The prosecution wants to admit evidence that the accused was convicted in the past of drugging a girl in a nightclub, raping her and then releasing her. This evidence would probably not meet the threshold required to admit similar act evidence because the behaviour is not particularly unique. However, if the same drug was used to subdue the victim in both cases and it was a very rare drug that was difficult to obtain, then the previous incident is more likely to be admissible. On these new facts, it is much more improbable that the connection between the similar act evidence and the facts before the court are simply a coincidence.

In addition to precision, similar act evidence must also have a high degree of probative value in order to offset the prejudicial effect it will have on the jury. In other words, the evidence must be very strong in order for the judge to admit it despite the fact that invites the jury to draw a negative inference from the accused’s history that he or she is more likely to have committed the offence.

The fourth and final exception to the rule against character evidence occurs in situations where the accused leads character evidence to suggest that a third party committed the offence. In general, when the accused and his or her criminal defence lawyer decide to point the finger at someone else using character evidence the defence invites a comparison between the accused’s character and the character of the third party. However, when the defence uses facts to point the finger to a third party, it does not open the door for the prosecution to tender character evidence about the accused. In other words, if the defence leads evidence that a third party has acted a certain way in the past and try to use that evidence to suggest that the third party committed the crime at hand, then the defendant puts his or her character at issue. However, if the accused’s criminal defence lawyer points to facts (such as the location of the crime in relation to the third party, the third party’s lack of an alibi, or the third parties proximity to the events surrounding the crime), the defendant’s character is not put at issue and the prosecution cannot lead character evidence against the accused as a result.

The rule against character evidence is an important tenant of our criminal justice system. Without the rule against character evidence, individuals would continue to be punished for past crimes or past bad behaviour indefinitely. People who have displayed bad character traits in the past or who had engaged in past criminal behaviour but have served their debt to society should not be punished by the criminal justice system for what they did in the past with new criminal sanctions. Individuals should only be punished by the criminal justice system if the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt on the facts that the defendant committed the crime at question.

Call Kostman and Pyzer, Barristers, Toronto criminal defence lawyers who will defend you aggressively and fight for your rights!

Under Canadian law it is illegal to drive when impaired. Usually when we hear about impaired driving in the media, the focus is on drinking and driving. However, it is also illegal to drive while under the influence of drugs. This law applies both to illegal drugs and to prescription drugs which affect the user’s ability to drive.

The focus is not on the legal status of the drug, but on its effects. Drugs that impair depth perception, attention span, concentration, decision-making, and reaction time are all considered to be “impairing”. This would include street drugs such as cocaine and marijuana and also a wide variety of prescription drugs such as morphine, oxycodone, valium and other painkillers. Obviously, drugs that cause hallucinations, distort the user’s perception of time and distance, cause confusion or make it hard to distinguish between fantasy and reality are extremely impairing. This would include a variety of hallucinogenic street drugs such as magic mushrooms, LSD, acid, and also amphetamines such as ecstasy, crystal meth, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), dexamphetamine.

If a driver is stopped by a roadside spot check (such as Toronto’s RIDE program) or spotted driving erratically by the police, and the police suspect that he or she is currently impaired by drugs, they will investigate. The police have many resources available to them to test whether an individual is driving under the influence of drugs.

If the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that a suspect is impaired by drugs, he or she may administer a Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST). This SFST consists of a series of three tests. The first test is known as the “horizontal gaze nystagmus test”. “Horizontal gaze mystagmus” is the technical terms for the natural involuntary jerking of the eyeball that occurs as the eyes gaze to the side. When an individual is impaired, this jerking becomes exaggerated and occurs earlier. The officer will likely ask the suspect to watch his hand as he moves it from side to side to see if your eyes react abnormally. Moreover, individuals impaired by drugs have difficulty concentrating on a moving object, and so this is also a factor the officer will look for when applying the first test.

The second and third tests in the SFST are known as “divided attention tests”. These test require that the suspect listen and follow instructions while performing simple physical movements. The first is the walk and turn test. The suspect will be instructed to walk nine steps, heel to toe, along a straight line, and then turn on one leg and walk back. The second test is the one leg stand where the suspect is asked to stand on one leg with the other foot about six feet off the ground and count by thousands (“one thousand, two thousand, etc.). Though these tasks would be extremely easy for a sober person to perform, an impaired individual will often have trouble performing these tasks. Impaired individuals often have trouble performing tasks that require them to pay attention to instruction, perform simple mental actions (such as counting in thousands) or performing simple physical acts (such as balancing on one foot). During the “walk and turn test” the officer will watch for seven factors: if the suspect has trouble balancing while listening to the instructions, begins before the instructions are finished, stops while walking to regain his or her balance, does not touch heel-to-toe, uses his or her arms to balance, loses his or her balance while turning, or takes an incorrect number of steps, these will be considered signs of impairment. During the “one leg stand”, the officer will watch to see if the individual has trouble balancing on one foot. If the suspect sways, uses his or her arms for balance, hops on one foot to maintain his or her balance, or looses his or her balance, the officer will view that as a sign of impairment.

The SFSTs are entirely voluntary in every Canadian province except Quebec. In Toronto and the rest of Ontario you are not legally obliged to comply with the SFSTs. There are a variety of reasons why you should not comply with these tests. Though the tests have been studied and shown to be 60-80% accurate when performed properly in ideal conditions, criminal defence lawyers know from experience that, in practice, these test are almost always performed incorrectly in conditions that skew the results. For example, if a suspect is asked to perform these tests on an incline or if the ground is wet, this may interfere with the quality of the results. Moreover, police officers often give poor instructions, causing suspects to misunderstand and subsequently fail the test. Moreover, these skewed results can be used to detain the suspect and transport him or her to the police station for further testing.

If the suspect is detained and taken to the police station, he or she will be evaluated by a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE). If the drug recognition expert is able to evaluate the individual and determine that a specific family of drugs caused the suspect to be impaired, the suspect will be forced to submit to a saliva, urine or blood test. This will be tested for drugs to determine whether or not the individual is impaired.

The new testing regime described above, most notably the mandatory fluid samples, is a relatively new process in Ontario law. It was introduced in July 2008 under Bill C-2: the Tackling Violent Crime Act. There are many reasons why criminal defence lawyers feel that this new legislation is unlikely to be effective. First, unlike alcohol impairment, which is quite obvious, individuals under the influence of marijuana and other similar drugs display few obvious signs of impairment. Though individuals on amphetamines and opiates may display more symptoms of impairment there is very little evidence that these drugs are actually linked to car accidents in any significant way. It seems that most people voluntarily refrain from driving while under the influence of these drugs. Thus, it will be hard to officers to identify correctly suspects to undergo this new process. Second, there is very little evidence that saliva or urine tests provide any accurate information about levels of drugs in the body. The technology for saliva testing of THC (the active drug in marijuana) levels is rudimentary at best. Moreover, urine testing only tells us if the suspect has consumed drugs in the recent past (30 days for marijuana); however, it cannot conclusively link the ingestion of the drug with the time of driving. Only a blood plasma test has the ability to show current levels of drugs in the body. However, since up until now Canadian law has espoused a zero tolerance policy with respect to drugs, there is very little research indicating what levels of each drug in the blood actually leads to “impairment”. Since impairment is a necessary component of the offence of “driving while impaired”, this is an important deficiency in the law. Finally, since a blood test is an invasive procedure and because our law recognizes that individual’s have the right to protect their bodily integrity and make important decisions about their body, mandatory testing – which is unlikely to show conclusive results – it is almost certainly unconstitutional. If you are charged under the new regime, your criminal defence lawyer will certainly challenge the constitutionality of the test. Thus, it is very unlikely that the new process will lead to an increase in convictions of individuals driving while under the influence of drugs.

Recently, in the case of R. v. B., although the Drug Recognition Expert concluded that B was impaired by drug (most likely marijuana), a urine sample taken by the police definitely showed that there was no active drug in B’s bloodstream.

A Peacebond is a court order requiring a specific individual to “keep the peace and be of good behaviour”. A peacebond is not a conviction and it will not appear on your criminal record.  However, a peacebond can restrict your liberty. Sometimes, in addition to requiring that the recipient “keep the peace and be of a good behaviour”, a peacebond will also set out specific conditions intended to protect a person or a specific type of property. Generally speaking, a s. 810 peacebond is Canada’s version of a “restraining order”. The most common conditions contained in peacebonds require that the recipient not be within a specific distance of a particular person or that person’s family, refrain from going near a person’s property, not communicate with a specified person or that person’s family, and/or that the recipient not be in possession of any weapons or firearms. A peace bond can be issued either under s. 810 of the Criminal Code or under the common law.

Section 810 Peacebonds

Section 810 allows any individual to apply to the court for a peacebond against any individual whom they reasonably believe poses a threat to their personal safety, the safety of their spouse or child, or their personal property. An application can be made at any time and it is not necessary for the applicant to initiate criminal proceedings against the potential recipient. The main requirement is that the applicant fears, on reasonable grounds, that the potential recipient may hurt the applicant, in some way. This includes not only physical harm but also harm of a sexual nature and damage to property. Section 810 specifically requires that the applicant’s fear be based on “reasonable grounds”. A judge will determine whether the applicant’s fear is reasonable on a case-by-case basis taking into account several factors such as: any threats made by the potential recipient, any past violent behaviour on the part of the potential recipient towards the applicant or others, the relationship between the applicant and the potential recipient, and any other relevant factor. If the judge is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the potential recipient poses a harm to the applicant, the judge will order that the defendant enter into a peacebond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Once the judge is satisfied that a s. 810 peacebond should be issued, i.e., that the recipient poses a threat to the applicant in some way, he or she is obligated to consider including conditions limiting the recipients ability to interact with the applicant, communicate with the applicant, or posses any weapons or firearms.

Section 810 also includes special rules for applicants who reasonably fear that another individual may commit an act of terrorism, a sexual offence against the applicant, or inflict serious personal injury to the applicant.

Common Law Peacebonds

A common law peacebond, on the other hand, can only arise in the context of a criminal trial. Every judge has what is known as a “common law power” to order that a defendant enter into a peacebond. Thus, even if a judge is not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant in a criminal matter is guilty, that judge may issue a peacebond against the defendant to protect the complainant from any future harm or retaliation for laying criminal charges. In situations like this, the peacebond is not a finding of guilt and will not appear on the defendant’s criminal record. In minor cases, the Crown Attorney’s office may withdraw a charge in exchange for the defendant agreeing to enter into a peacebond. However, according to the Crown Policy Manual, the Crown Attorney’s Office will agree to a peacebond as an acceptable remedy for domestic abuse only in “the most unusual of circumstances”.

A section 810 peacebond can be issued for a maximum of one year, while the duration of a common law peacebond is at the discretion of the court. The conditions contained in the peacebond can be relaxed at any time during the life of the peacebond. A criminal defence lawyer can help you to negotiate with the Crown Attorney’s Office to relax the terms of either type of peacebond. If a peacebond is ordered against you and you refuse to enter into the peacebond (by refusing to sign it) you can be charged under the Criminal Code and liable to 12 months imprisonment. Failing to comply with the conditions of a peacebond is also a criminal offence.