Criminal Law

Criminal Law

On April 14, 2016, Dr. Perry Kendall, Provincial Medical Health Officer declared a public health emergency under the BC Public Health Act in response to increasing overdoses and overdose deaths in our province.

In an effort to reduce the number of deaths caused by overdoses of controlled substances, the federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health granted the province of British Columbia’s request for an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act allowing adults to possess small amounts of some controlled substances for personal use without fear of criminal prosecution.

From January 31, 2023, to January 31, 2026, adults (18 and over) in BC will be exempt from criminal charges for possessing a cumulative maximum 2.5 grams of the following substances:

  • Opium, including heroin and fentanyl.
  • Cocaine.
  • Methamphetamine, but not its salts.
  • MDMA.

There are two important conditions for the exemption to apply. First, possession of these substances must only be for personal use. This means there must be no intent to traffic, export, produce or manufacture the substance. Second, if the substance is possessed on a boat, a train, or a motor vehicle operated by an adult, the substance must not be readily accessible to the driver or operator.

The exemption from prosecutions does not apply in the following circumstances:

  • on K-12 school premises;
  • on child care facility premises;
  • in airports;
  • in a motor vehicle that is driven or operated by a minor, whether or not the vehicle is in motion; and
  • in a watercraft that is operated by a minor, whether or not the watercraft is in motion.

The stigma associated with substance use can lead people to use in riskier ways. Individuals found in possession of substances listed in the exemption will be provided with information on available local health and social services and can also be provided with assistance to connect with those services. The decision to exempt users from criminal prosecution will allow users to seek and obtain assistance and reduce the number of lives lost to overdoses in BC.

If you are being investigated or have been charged with a drug offence, contact the experienced lawyers at Filkow Law for legal assistance.

Read Now

Allegations of assault offences are very common.  From pushing and shoving to punching and kicking, assault is the most common type of violent crime.  This article outlines the different types of assaults recognized in Canadian law and provides some explanation of each.

What is an Assault?

Assault is defined as the intentional application of force to another person, directly or indirectly, without that other person’s consent.  Simply put, an assault occurs as soon as person A touches person B without person B’s consent.  Any unwanted touching is an assault.  There are a few features of assault that are important to understand.

First, the application of force must be intentional.  If person A accidentally touches person B, then they have not committed an assault.  Tripping and falling into another person, bumping into them while distracted, and being pushed into someone by a third party are not assaults because the application of force was unintentional.

Second, as set out in the definition, the application of force can be indirect.  Suppose person A intentionally pushes person B into person C.  In this scenario, person A is responsible for assaulting both person B and person C.  Person A assaulted person B because he directly applied force to person B, and person A also assaulted person C because he indirectly applied force to person C by pushing person B into person C.

Third, any physical contact without consent that is more than trifling is an assault.  Only the most minor and trifling physical contact is not an assault.  For example, if person A taps person B’s shoulder to get their attention, person A has not committed an assault because the touching is so minor.

Assault is also defined as “an attempt or threat, by any act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, that causes the other person to reasonably believe that the person will apply force to them”.  This means an assault can be committed even when there is no physical contact.  An act or gesture can be an assault.  An example of this occurs when person A raises their fist to person B in a way that makes person B reasonably believe he is about to be punched.  In this example, person A has assaulted person B even though there was no physical contact.

A conviction for assault can result in a criminal record, a jail sentence and other consequences.

Assault With a Weapon

Assault with a weapon is defined as an assault where a person “carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation thereof”.

Assault with a weapon shares the essential elements of an assault with the addition of a weapon.  A “weapon” is defined as “any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use: (a) in causing death or injury to any person, or (b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person”.

The law recognizes some items as weapons.  For example, firearms, switch blades, stilettos, butterfly knives and brass knuckles.  These are all weapons because they are designed to cause death or injury.

But depending on the context, anything – from a cell phone to a water bottle to a stapler – can become a weapon.  Whether a thing is a weapon is defined by its context.  Suppose during an argument person A grabs a stapler and hits person B with it.  In this scenario, person A assaulted person B with a weapon.  The stapler was simply a stapler until it was used in an assault.  Once used to hit person B, the stapler became a weapon.

Assault Causing Bodily Harm

An assault causing bodily harm is defined as an assault that results in bodily harm.  “Bodily harm” is defined as “any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature”.  The threshold for bodily harm is low.  It includes injuries such as bruising and cuts.

Assault causing bodily harm is defined by its outcome and not its intention.  For example, suppose person A punches person B and person C at separate times but in an identical manner.  Person B is cut by the punch and person C is not.  Even though the act of punching was the same in each case, person A committed assault causing bodily harm against person B because person B was cut.  It does not matter whether person A intended the cut to happen.

Assault causing bodily harm is more serious than an assault without bodily harm and can result in a more significant sentence on conviction.

Aggravated Assault

Aggravated assault is defined as an assault that “wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant”.  This means that there are effectively four separate kinds of aggravated assaults: those that wound; those that maim; those that disfigure; and, those that endanger life.

A “wound” is defined as “a break in the continuity of the whole skin that constitutes serious bodily harm”.  A stabbing meets the definition of a wound.

“Maim” means “the loss of the use of some body part or some bodily function”.  Breaking someone’s arm or leg is maiming.  The loss of use of this body part or function does not need to be permanent to constitute maiming.

“Disfigurement” is an injury that has a long-lasting and significant effect on the appearance or beauty of a person.  Examples include scarring as a result of cuts, acid or burns.  A temporary effect on a person’s appearance, such as a bruise or a black eye, is not a disfigurement.

“Endangering” means to endanger a person’s life as a result of a completed assault.  The following two examples help illustrate the definition:

  1. Person A pushes person B on a 4th-floor balcony causing person B to go over the railing.  Person B manages to hang on.  Person B is not harmed but his life was put in danger as a result of the assault.
  2. Person A pushes person B into a busy intersection with many fast-moving vehicles.  Person B is fortunate that the drivers see him and avoid a collision.

In both cases, the assault itself did not result in any harm or injury, but the person’s life was put in danger by the assault.

Aggravated assault is more serious than assault causing bodily harm and will usually attract a jail sentence upon conviction.

Domestic Assault

Domestic or spousal assault refers to any form of assault against an intimate partner or a family member.  A domestic assault is an aggravating circumstance on sentence if convicted.  An “intimate partner” is defined as a “current or former spouse, common-law partner and dating partner”.  Any assault against a girlfriend or boyfriend is a domestic assault.

Domestic assaults require special consideration for a few reasons.

First, an allegation of a domestic assault will routinely result in an accused person being put on conditions not to go to near their partner and not to contact their partner.  There are limited exceptions.  This can be challenging when a couple lives together or coparents children.

Second, domestic assaults may overlap with family court proceedings.  A decision in one case may affect the other.  This requires coordination between a family lawyer and a criminal lawyer.

Third, if the couple has children, the Ministry of Children and Family Development may send a social worker to investigate and make decisions about where a child should live or whether a protection order is required.  The Ministry has the authority to impose their own conditions separate from the police and the court based on the best interests of the children.

Uttering Threats

Uttering threats is defined as “knowingly uttering, conveying, or causing any person to receive a threat (a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person; (b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or (c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person”.  In other words, three specific types of threats are prohibited: threats to kill or harm someone; threats to damage property; and threats to injure a pet.

Allegations Of Assault Offences

Allegations of assault and uttering threats can be complex and serious.  The lawyers at Filkow Law have extensive experience in defending people from these types of charges.  If you find yourself being investigated or charged with this type of offence, call us immediately.

Read Now

In a newly published decision from the British Columbia Supreme Court, Anthony Robinson of Filkow Law successfully defended his client on a charge of second-degree murder on account of a mental disorder rendering him incapable of knowing that the act was morally wrong. This defence is sometimes known as the “insanity defence”. It is provided for in section 16(1) of the Criminal Code:

No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

This defence can be divided into three parts: (1) Did the accused suffer from a mental disorder? (2) Did that mental disorder render the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act? (3) Did that mental disorder render that person incapable of knowing that the act was wrong?

What is a Mental Disorder?

A mental disorder is defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code as a “disease of the mind”. In R v Cooper, a 1979 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the majority of the court held that a “disease of the mind” means “any illness, disorder or abnormal condition which impairs the human mind and its functioning”. This definition excludes self-induced states, such as those caused by voluntarily consuming alcohol or drugs.

In this case, the judge agreed that the accused suffered from a mental disorder on the basis of two expert opinions that confirmed that the accused was schizophrenic.

Did that Mental Disorder Render the Accused Incapable of Appreciating the Nature and Quality of the Act?

In some cases, the accused may be so delusional that they are unaware of appreciating their actions. For example, some cases may involve a belief that the accused is fighting aliens or protecting people they are in fact harming.

In this case, the accused made statements to the police stating he wanted to turn himself in and that his intention was to kill the accused. The judge found that the accused was capable of appreciating the nature and quality of his act.

Did that Mental Disorder Render the Accused Incapable of Knowing the Act was Wrong?

In R v Chaulk, a 1990 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the majority of the court held that “wrong” means “morally wrong”, as opposed to “legally wrong”. In R v Oommen, a 1994 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the court clarified that “the crux of the inquiry is whether the accused lacks the capacity to rationally decide whether the act is right or wrong and hence to make a rational choice about whether to do it or not.”

In this case, the judge held that due to the accused’s schizophrenia and delusional beliefs that he had been poisoned by the victim, he did not have the capacity to make a rational choice about the rightness or wrongness of his act.

Conclusion

Ultimately, Mr. Robinson’s client was found not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder that made him unable to know the wrongness of his act.

In any case, from murder to assault to drug trafficking, it is important to have experienced counsel who are knowledgeable and familiar with the most current law. Filkow Law has over 50 years of collective experience and is a well-respected criminal law firm. If you are being investigated or have been charged with any type of criminal offence in Vancouver, Richmond, Surrey, Kelowna, or Abbotsfordcontact our office for assistance.

Read Now

On December 18, 2018, Parliament made significant changes to drinking and driving laws. Filkow Law’s Anthony Robinson wrote and presented a paper explaining these changes to the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia on September 24, 2021. This is the fifth instalment of this paper, outlining evidentiary issues for drinking and driving case law examples in BC.

The following is an excerpt regarding evidentiary issues surrounding samples, statements and disclosure:

Admissibility of Result of Analysis s. 320.31(7)

Subsection 320.31(7) states that voluntarily providing a sample of breath, blood, urine, sweat or other bodily substances may be used as evidence against the individual without notice. The individual need not be warned that they did not need to give the sample, or that the sample may be used as evidence against the individual. This provision has yet to be constitutionally challenged.

Admissibility of Statement s. 320.31(9)

Subsection 320.31(9) provides that a statement compelled by law is admissible for the purpose of justifying a demand for breath or other bodily samples. The section states:

(9) A statement made by a person to a peace officer, including a statement compelled under a provincial Act, is admissible in evidence for the purpose of justifying a demand made under section 320.27 or 320.28.

This provision was constitutionality challenged in R v Korduner, 2021 ABPC 83 an Alberta lower court decision. In Korduner, the accused was involved in a motor vehicle accident. On the way to the hospital after the accident, the accused made statements to a police officer in the ambulance. Those statements were compelled under the Traffic Safety Act and were used as evidence against the accused on a charge of impaired operation and refusing a breath demand.

The accused argued that section 320.31(9) of the Code violated sections 7, 8, 9 and 10(b) of the Charter. The accused relied on the “use immunity” principle to argue a conveyance operator involved in an accident is protected by the principle against self-incrimination. Following the precedents in R v White, [1999] 2 SCR 417, R v Powers, 2006 BCCA 454, R v Soules, 2011 ONCA 429, and R v Porter, 2015 ABCA 279 the court in Kroduner concluded s. 320.31(9) violated section 7 of the Charter. The court stated:

[50] Section 7 of the Charter provides protection for individuals who are required to report an accident. I have already found in Voir Dire #2, that the Accused/Applicant’s statements to the officer were statements compelled by section 71 TSA and that the Accused/Applicant had an honest and reasonable belief that she was statutorily compelled to answer his questions, and thus the principles of White were engaged and those statements provided are protected from any use in subsequent criminal proceedings. Per the reasoning of Powers, Soules, and Porter, use of the compelled answers are not admissible in a criminal proceeding for any purpose, including to establish reasonable grounds for a breath sample demand.

[51] Section 320.31(9) specifically allows for such a compelled statement to be used to justify a breath demand. The portion of section 320.31(9) dealing with a statement “compelled under a provincial Act” goes directly against the reasoning in White, Powers, Soules, and Porter. It is clear that the Accused/Applicant’s section 7 Charter rights are engaged. I find the above cited authority is determinative of the issue: that allowing a compelled statement under a Provincial Act, including a compelled statement under the TSA, would infringe the Accused/Applicant’s section 7 rights against self-incrimination in a manner not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The Accused/Applicant has demonstrated that section 320.31(9) both engages section 7 of the Charter and that the impugned provision is causally connected to the prejudice arising from the infringement of the principle against self-incrimination.9

However, since the Alberta Provincial Court lacks jurisdiction to declare legislation unconstitutional, the court limited the unconstitutional finding to the accused. Further, the court clarified that the finding was contingent on a section 1 Charter hearing, which to date has not been heard.

Disclosure

The Crown’s disclosure obligations with respect to the proper functioning of the Approved Instrument have now been codified in s. 320.34(1). The prosecutor must disclose information about any breath samples provided pursuant to subsection 320.28 including:

(a) the results of the system blank tests;

(b) the results of the system calibration checks;

(c) any error or exception messages produced by the approved instrument at the time the samples were taken;

(d) the results of the analysis of the accused’s breath samples; and

(e) a certificate of an analyst stating that the sample of an alcohol standard that is identified in the certificate is suitable for use with an approved instrument.

Pursuant to s. 320.34(2) the accused may apply to the court for a hearing to determine whether further materials should be disclosed regarding the proper functioning of the Approved Instrument. The application must be in writing and set out detailed particulars of the information the accused seeks to have disclosed and the likely relevance of that information to determining whether the Approved Instrument was in proper working order (see s. 320.34(3)). The disclosure application hearing must be held at least 30 days before trial.

If you exceeded the blood alcohol limit while driving and need legal assistance, the lawyers at Filkow Law have over 50 years of experience dealing with all types of criminal law and driving law cases. Please feel free to give us a call.

Read Now

On December 18, 2018, Parliament made significant changes to drinking and driving laws. Filkow Law’s Anthony Robinson wrote and presented a paper explaining these changes to the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia on September 24, 2021. This is the fourth instalment of this paper, explaining the increased penalties for drinking and driving, including dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.

Increased Penalties for Drinking and Driving

The following is an excerpt regarding some of the increased penalties for a conviction of a criminal driving offence:

Mandatory minimum sentences now apply to dangerous operation causing bodily harm and causing death as well as fleeing the scene of an accident causing bodily harm and death.

There are now tiered fines for having a BAC over certain thresholds. A first conviction for having a BAC equal to or exceeding 120mgs% but less than 160mgs% will result in a minimum fine of $1500. If the BAC is greater than 160mgs%, the minimum fine is $2000. The minimum fine for a first offence for refusing to provide a breath sample is doubled to $2000.

The maximum jail sentence for impaired driving and refusal to provide a sample increased from 5 years to 10 years if prosecuted by indictment. This will result in automatic deportation for convicted foreign nationals or permanent residents.

Driving prohibitions under the Code for impaired driving, over .08 and refusal are:

  • For the first offence, a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 3 years (plus any period of imprisonment).
  • For the second offence, a minimum of 2 years to a maximum of 10 years (plus any period of imprisonment).
  • For each subsequent offence, a minimum of 3 years with no maximum (plus any period of imprisonment).

There are also mandatory prohibitions under the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act for Criminal Code driving convictions.

Section 320.22 sets out aggravating features that the court must consider on sentencing. The factors are:

(a) the commission of the offence resulted in bodily harm to, or the death of, more than one person;

(b) the offender was operating a motor vehicle in a race with at least one other motor vehicle or in a contest of speed, on a street, road or highway or in another public place;

(c) a person under the age of 16 years was a passenger in the conveyance operated by the offender;

(d) the offender was being remunerated for operating the conveyance;

(e) the offender’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of committing the offence was equal to or exceeded 120 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood;

(f)  the offender was operating a large motor vehicle;[1] and

(g) the offender was not permitted, under a federal or provincial Act, to operate the conveyance.

This list of aggravating factors is not exhaustive.

A first offence for over .08 with a BAC below 120 mgs% is $1000. A first offence with a BAC in excess of 120mgs% carries a mandatory increased fine ($1500 if the readings are between 120 and 160 mgs% and $2000 if more than 160 mgs%). Therefore, for first offenders, the aggravating feature of having a BAC in excess of 120mgs% is already accounted for by the mandatory minimum sentence. However, this aggravating feature is not accounted for for subsequent offences or if bodily harm or death is involved.

[1] Cases that have considered whether a vehicle is a large motor vehicle include: R v Hillier, 2020 CanLII 85560 (NLPC) at paras 33-34 (Silverado truck); R v Sivakumaran, 2021 ONCJ 307 at paras 37-38 (Ford pickup truck); R v Caines, 2019 ONCJ 348, at para 26 (Dodge Ram pickup truck); R v Saxby, 2006 ABPC 201 at para 2, (Kenworth tractor); R v Dhadwal, 2012 ABPC 349 at paras 5, 25 (unspecified truck); R v Fairchild, 2017 ONCJ 658 at paras 1, 30 (Ford Escape SUV); R v Burger, 2015 ABPC 224 at paras 1, 68 (Semi-truck); R v Hallock, 2014 ABPC 232 at para 22 (Ford F150); and R v Bagri, 2016 BCCA 272 at paras 7, 17 (2003 Volvo tractor truck weighing 8575kg).

Read Now

Witnesses giving evidence or testifying in court is a fundamental part of the criminal justice system. A single witness can make or break a case.

Types of court witnesses in a criminal matter

There are generally three kinds of witnesses: (1) eyewitnesses, (2) expert witnesses and (3) character witnesses. Eyewitnesses testify as to what they saw or heard. For example, if Mr. Jones saw someone break into a home, Mr. Jones would be an eyewitness who could give evidence about who and what he saw. Similarly, if Ms. Jones heard the sound of breaking glass, Ms. Jones would be an eyewitness who could provide evidence about what she heard. Both the prosecution and the defence can call an eyewitness to give evidence. After a witness has given their evidence, the other side will have an opportunity to cross-examine that witness in court.

Expert witnesses provide an opinion on an issue that is beyond the experience and knowledge of the judge or jury—for example, the diagnosis of a mental disorder or the cause of a motor vehicle accident. A judge must qualify expert witnesses before they are allowed to testify. Expert witnesses cannot give evidence as to whether they think an accused person is innocent or guilty, but their opinion can strongly impact the judge or jury.

Character witnesses may be called to speak to the good or bad character of a person. Character witnesses do not give evidence regarding the incident itself but rather their knowledge of a person’s reputation regarding certain character traits, such as honesty or morality. Generally, the Crown is prohibited from adducing evidence about an accused person’s character unless the accused brings it up first. For example, if Mr. Jones is accused of fraud, he might say that he would never commit a fraud because he is such an honest person. This would open the door for the Crown to bring in their own witnesses as to Mr. Jones’ bad character.

What qualifies a court witness?

There are few qualifications for witnesses. A witness must be able to understand the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation and communicate evidence. In cases where a witness does not understand an oath or solemn affirmation, by reason of mental disorder or otherwise, they can still testify by a promise, to tell the truth. If a witness is 14 years or younger, they must be able to understand and respond to questions and promise to tell the truth.

What qualifies an expert witness?

Expert witnesses are subject to more qualifications than ordinary witnesses. The proposed expert witness must: 

  • be relevant; 
  • be necessary to help the judge or jury;
  • not be excluded by any other rule of evidence; and 
  • must be “properly qualified.”

The necessity of an expert will depend on whether the opinion is outside the realm of ordinary human experience. Common areas where experts are required include:

  • accident reconstruction;
  • alcohol or drug analysis;
  • injury causation;
  • arson;
  • cell phone towers;
  • digital analysis (cellphones, computers, etc.)
  • social science
  • mental health; and
  • DNA.

The judge makes the final decision about whether an expert is qualified or not based on their education, training and experience.

What qualifies a character witness?

There are no special qualifications for character witnesses. If you are giving evidence of the accused’s character, you can only give testimony as to the general reputation of the accused for a certain character trait. Common traits are honesty and morality. 

For example, if Mr. Jones is giving evidence about the character of the accused, he might testify to the following:

  • Mr. Jones’ own credibility and reputation;
  • Mr. Jones’ relationship and connection to the accused; 
  • how Mr. Jones knows the general reputation of the accused in the community; and 
  • the reputation of the accused is regarding a particular character trait.

Mr. Jones cannot give evidence about his personal opinion or specific good acts the accused has performed in the past unless those acts are demonstrative of the relevant character trait.

What if I incriminate myself in someone else’s trial?

As a witness, you can be compelled to answer a question even if it may incriminate you or establish your liability in a civil proceeding. However, that compelled testimony cannot be used in another proceeding against you except for prosecuting perjury or giving contradictory evidence. For example, if Mr. Jones testified that he remembered witnessing an assault because it happened near his favourite bar, and he had just finished drinking five beers before driving past the crime scene, the Crown cannot use that admission as evidence against Mr. Jones in a drinking and driving case against Mr. Jones. However, if there was an impaired driving case against Mr. Jones, and he testified that he only had one glass of wine, he can be cross-examined on his testimony from the other proceeding to show that he is not credible or deliberately gave a false statement under oath or both.

What if the accused is my spouse?

Every witness in court can be compelled to testify – even if the accused is their spouse. However, no person is required to disclose any communication made to them by their spouse during their marriage. For example, Ms. Jones could be compelled to answer questions about whether she saw her husband, Mr. Jones, damage their neighbour’s car. Ms. Jones could not be compelled to answer questions about whether Mr. Jones discussed his plans to damage their neighbour’s car with her.

Types of Witnesses In Court: Conclusion

Understanding the role of each court witness is a vital part of trial preparation and strategy. The lawyers at Filkow Law have over 50 years of experience dealing with all types of witnesses. If you are in need of legal assistance, please feel free to give us a call.

Read Now

Vancouver drug decriminalization is a heavily contested topic amongst city officials. In response to the alarming rise of overdoses in British Columbia, the municipal government of Vancouver recently submitted a request to the federal government to decriminalize the simple possession of illicit drugs within the city of Vancouver.

 

The Minister of Health’s Power to Exempt Certain Controlled Substances 

The Minister of Health has the authority, pursuant to section 56(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, to exempt any substance if the Minister determines it is necessary for medical or scientific purposes or determines it is in the public interest. Section 56(1) was originally legislated to support the advancement of medical and scientific research. Now, the focus of the request is the public interest. If the Minister determines it is in the public interest and makes an exemption, then it would not be an offence under the CDSA to possess those exempt substances.

Related: Sentencing for Fentanyl Charges in BC

Vancouver Drug Decriminalization: What Kinds of Drugs And How Much?

 

The proposal seeks an exemption for opioids, including heroin, fentanyl and other powder street opioids, as well as cocaine, crack cocaine and amphetamine. These are the drugs most commonly involved in the current opioid overdose crisis.

 

The following list outlines the substances proposed and the maximum amount allowed under the exemption:

  • Opioids (i.e. heroin, fentanyl, and other powder street opioids): 2 grams
  • Cocaine: 3 grams
  • Crack Cocaine: 10 rocks or 1 gram (1 rock = 0.1 grams)
  • Amphetamine: 1.5 grams

Vancouver Drug Decriminalization: How Drastic is the Change? 

 

While Vancouver is taking an initiative to prevent and mitigate the negative impacts associated with the overdose crisis, it is important to remember that decriminalization is not legalization. The proposal is limited to simple possession. The exemption does not apply to commercial purposes such as possession for the purpose of trafficking. 

 

Even before Vancouver’s proposal, the number of charges recommended for simple possession has diminished over the years. Possession charges are certainly less common than for more serious offences. The list below outlines the number of charges the Vancouver Police Department recommended for simple possession over the past 12.5 years:

  • 2008: 476 charges for simple possession
  • 2009: 224
  • 2010: 141
  •  2011: 90
  • 2012: 65
  • 2013: 70
  • 2014: 48
  • 2015: 65
  • 2016: 43
  • 2017: 30
  • 2018: 21
  • 2019: 16
  • 2020: 10 (January to June 2020)

Given the significant decrease in the number of charges recommended for simple possession, the proposal does not bring about a drastic change for drug offences in the city of Vancouver. Nevertheless, the proposal is a step towards the more general decriminalization of controlled substances. It may also reduce the stigma associated with drug use.

Vancouver Drug Offences: Call Filkow Law

Filkow Law is a highly respected criminal and driving law firm with 50 years of collective expertise delivering outstanding results. If you are in need of legal assistance, contact us today.

Read Now

A question that comes up more and more in recent years is, can the police unlock your phone if you’re under arrest? The development of technology, in particular the ubiquitous presence of smartphones, creates issues not previously dealt with by the courts and legal scholars. Requiring someone to provide passwords to the police is one such example of a novel legal problem. The Ontario Court of Justice in R v Shergill recently answered whether the court, through an assistance order under section 487.02 of the Criminal Code, can lawfully require an arrested individual to unlock encrypted data to aid an investigation.

Can The Police Force You To Unlock Your Phone In Canada?

Police can and will confiscate your phone if you are arrested. If a person’s device is unlocked upon arrest, the police may in some circumstances lawfully retrieve stored data. However, when the device is locked, the police may not be able to access any information. Lawful seizure of the device alone—without access to stored data—provides little to no investigative value. In limited circumstances, an assistance order may force an individual to participate in the police search so that the investigation is more meaningful. According to Shergill, this power does not extend to an accused person.

Related: “I am Being Arrested By the Police. I Need to Speak to a Lawyer”

This is largely because the data is not accessible without participation of the accused. Trying to obtain encrypted information any other way would expend too many resources or may even destroy the seized device. Although the password itself may not be used as evidence against someone, the inculpatory effect of providing encryption keys in and of itself makes password compulsion unconstitutional. An assistance order against an accused violates the person’s rights including the presumption of innocence, right to silence and right against self-incrimination.

Individual Rights vs Public Interest

The court in Shergill also distinguished password compulsion from other forms of orders related to the creation of physical evidence (e.g., DNA and breath samples). Physical evidence can be obtained through other means. An encryption key, however, requires communicating a thought in the person’s head. The key cannot be revealed unless the person utters the characters. In Canada, the protection of freedom of speech extends to encryption keys, even when it may or may not contain information vital to police investigation. Balancing the public interest in prosecution against an accused’s liberty interests, Shergill sided with protecting individual rights.

This decision has not been appealed or otherwise challenged by other jurisdictions. With emerging technological advancements, the Canadian courts have made it clear that while the police may acquire search warrants against individuals and seize items, access to information within the seized devices are not automatic.

Related: What to Do if You Are Stopped by Police

For more information on search of password-protected devices, or to obtain effective legal representation in unlawful search and seizure, contact us at Filkow Law – 604-558-8778. If you find yourself in need of a criminal defence lawyer, call immediately.

Read Now

Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark decision relating to the imposition of conditions on release (i.e., bail conditions) and breaches of those conditions.

Generally, to be convicted and found guilty of a criminal offence a person must commit a wrongful act – the actus reus – and must have the requisite guilty mind to commit that wrongful act – the mens rea. However, the law recognizes that there are two types of mens reasubjective and objective.

Subjective mens rea is where a person is responsible for committing the crime if they intended, knew, or were aware of what might happen because of their wrongful act.

Objective mens rea is where a person did not mean to do anything wrong but is nevertheless responsible for committing the wrongful act. In other words, objective mens rea looks at what an ordinary or reasonable member of society would have done in the same situation.

Breaking Your Bail Conditions: R. v. Zora Explained

Prior to the decision in Zora, courts throughout Canada disagreed on the mens rea to apply to breaches of bail conditions. However, in Zora, the SCC confirmed that the mens rea to be applied for breaching a bail condition was subjective. This means that the Court, in deciding the guilt or innocence of the accused person alleged to have breached a bail condition, must look at what that person actually knew or was aware might happen as a result of committing the breach.

In addition to resolving the issue of objective versus subjective mens rea for breaches of bail conditions, the Supreme Court took the opportunity to revisit the purpose and imposition of bail conditions. For decades prosecutors would seek, and Judges would consider and often impose many conditions to an accused’s person release or bail.  The Supreme Court of Canada in Zora found this was the wrong practice and has transformed this unjust tradition.   Rather, The Supreme Court found that normally there should not be any conditions imposed on bail. There are many reasons for this including an accused’s presumption of innocence, unnecessary restrictions on a person’s liberty and the impact of pre-trial conditions on vulnerable populations.  In other words, the default form of bail for most crimes is release on an undertaking. Additional bail conditions can only be imposed if they are clearly articulated, minimal in number, necessary, reasonable, the least onerous in the circumstances, and linked to the risks regarding the grounds for detention under section 515 of the Criminal Code. These include securing the accused ‘s attendance in court, ensuring the protection or safety of the public and maintaining confidence in the administration of justice.

The Zora case has changed things.  Bail conditions including no contact, no go, reporting, no alcohol, curfew and any other conditions must be justified and necessary. 

For more information on allegations of breaching bail conditions or for assistance in changing bail conditions, contact Filkow Law to speak with one of our experienced lawyers.

Read Now
1 2 3 5