Firm News Blog

Filkow Law has the pleasure of being voted a top-three Richmond Criminal Defence Lawyer and top-three DUI Laywer. Filkow Law has been serving a diverse community in the Richmond area for over 20 years. Lawyers and staff at the firm speak Mandarin, Cantonese, Punjabi, Russian, French, Serbian, Polish and German. The lawyers at Filkow Law specialize in criminal charges, driving cases, and ICBC cases.

Over the past decade, Filkow Law Richmond has been recognized for its expertise in multiple practice areas. Filkow Law has been voted the best law firm in Richmond for the past 8 years (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022). Filkow Law has consistently been voted as the top criminal and driving law firm in Richmond. Filkow Law was also rated one of the Top Three Richmond DUI Lawyers in 2021, 2022, and 2023. Filkow Law was also rated one of the Top Three Richmond Criminal Defence Lawyers in 2023.

Need A Criminal Defence Lawyer In Richmond? Call Filkow Law

Filkow Law is a highly regarded law firm with over 25 years of experience. Clients benefit from Filkow Law’s deep and broad knowledge and expertise of criminal law, driving law and the criminal justice and court system. Filkow Law is known for its skilled advocacy, its highly accessible culture, its signature strategic approach to every case, and the exceptional results achieved.

The lawyers at the firm have excellent reputations with the police, prosecutors and the courts across British Columbia. In addition to their courtroom skills, the lawyers at Filkow Law advocate for and achieve decisive victories away from the public eye, often before the criminal or driving case ever sees a day in court.

Filkow Law looks forward to continuing to deliver excellent outcomes for its clients. Please do not hesitate to contact any of the lawyers at the firm for a consultation.

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.

Contact Anthony Robinson & Filkow Law

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. Anthony Robinson and the Filkow Law team have 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 Abbotsford, contact our office for assistance.

Filkow Law welcomes lawyer West Pryde to our legal team. West was called to the bar in 2021 after completing his articles with Filkow Law. He practices in various areas including criminal law, driving law administrative law, as well as civil forfeiture and ICBC insurance matters.

West received his J.D. from the Peter A. Allard School of Law in 2020. He was a clinic head at the Law Students’ Legal Advice Program, where he gave free legal advice at the Carnegie Community Centre in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. West was also a caseworker with UBC Innocence Project, where he worked to overturn wrongful convictions.

Prior to law school, West earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in philosophy at the University of British Columbia in 2017.

In his spare time, West enjoys producing electronic music and practicing martial arts.

If you are charged with or being investigated for a criminal or driving offence, call West Pryde at Filkow Law to assist you.

Filkow Law recognizes the evolving situation surrounding COVID-19. Filkow Law remains open to our clients and to assist with new legal cases, including all criminal, driving and ICBC matters.

Filkow Law will conform to the government recommendations for social distancing and we will work remotely as necessary for the benefit of our clients, staff and community. Our lawyers are available by telephone and/or by email and and/or in-person appointments can be arranged as needed.

We are pleased to assist you with your legal matters.

Filkow Law welcomes criminal defence lawyer Paula Cooper to our legal team. Paula was called to the bar in 2019 after completing her articles at a Surrey criminal defence firm. She primarily practices in the area of criminal law and driving offences.

Filkow Law’s Welcomes Criminal Defence Lawyer Paula Cooper

In 2017, Paula received her law degree from the University of Alberta. While in law school, she competed in the Laskin Moot Court competition and volunteered with Student Legal Services in Edmonton.

Prior to law school, Paula earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in criminology at Simon Fraser University in 2014, and an Associate of Arts degree in creative writing from Douglas College in 2011.

In her spare time, Paula volunteers with various community theatre organizations around the Lower Mainland.

If you are charged with a criminal offence, call Paula Cooper at Filkow Law to assist you.

Filkow Law welcomes articled student Michael Scott to our legal team. Michael is finishing his articling year at Filkow Law and will be called to the bar in 2019. Michael has a strong background in civil litigation, and is familiar with civil procedure in both the Provincial and Supreme Courts of British Columbia.

At Filkow Law, Michael assists on various files including traffic tickets, driving offences, ICBC issues, and criminal matters. Michael is focused on resolving client issues favourably, practically, and expeditiously.

Filkow Law’s Newest Driving Offence Lawyer: Michael Scott

Michael obtained a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of British Columbia, while being active in several student leadership organizations. Michael pursued his law degree at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops.

In his spare time, Michael plays goalkeeper in recreational soccer leagues. He also enjoys playing rhythm guitar, bass guitar and backup vocals for his band from law school.

If you have a legal matter, call Michael at Filkow Law to assist you.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently criticized a trial judge for his conduct throughout a trial involving the death and alleged murder of a longboarder, Ralph Bisonnette, by a taxi driver, Adib Ibrahim. This post will examine what the trial judge did that drew criticism. While the judge’s behaviour did not directly result in a new trial it opens up an interesting discussion on the proper conduct of a judge during the course of any trial at all, let alone a stressful murder trial. This post will also examine an appeal on the grounds of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Mistrial Application

On the 14th day of the trial, defence counsel made an application for a mistrial based on a number of different actions performed by the judge throughout the course of the trial. Defence counsel argued that the trial judge’s conduct demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias against Mr. Ibrahim.

The test in Canada for establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias is whether “a reasonable person, properly informed and viewing the matter realistically and practically conclude that the decision-maker could decide the case fairly”. In other words, would a reasonable person think the judge could decide fairly?

In support of their application, defence had prepared a number of points illustrating the poor conduct of the trial judge that they argued thereby established a reasonable apprehension of bias:

• The trial judge complained three times about the defence not having a disclosure obligation;
• The trial judge required defence counsel to vet his cross-examination of witnesses ahead of time with the Crown and the court;
• The trial judge accused defence counsel of “trial by ambush” and expressed disappointment in the conduct of defence counsel;
• The trial judge interfered with the cross-examination of a Crown witness;
• The trial judge continually shook his head with disapproval in front of the jury while defence counsel questioned witnesses;
• The trial judge suggested, in the presence of the jury, that defence counsel was wasting time by cross-examining witnesses on videotaped statements, rather than from prepared transcripts;
• The trial judge interfered with the examination of witnesses on a voir dire;
• The trial judge accused defence counsel of attempting to engender the sympathy of the jury through inadmissible evidence;
• The trial judge yelled at defence counsel on numerous occasions;
• The trial judge glared at defence counsel, both in front of and in the absence of the jury; and
• The trial judge constantly interrupted defence counsel during submissions.

In sum, the trial judge was yelling, glaring, interrupting, and otherwise interfering with defence counsel. These allegations were supported by affidavits from defence counsel and employee of defence counsel’s law firm.

Related: Why You Should Never Represent Yourself in Court

After hearing some of the oral submissions on his alleged misbehaviour, the trial judge interjected and stated that he disagreed with virtually all of defence counsel’s points. The Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge frequently made lengthy comments during defence counsel’s submissions, while Crown was permitted to make their submissions without interruption.

Not only did the trial judge deny defence counsel’s allegations, stating “I categorically do not accept that I have yelled at you… [my] normal voice is a very loud and deep voice”, but he also accused defence counsel of “an ethical breach” and of professional misconduct and sharp practice contrary to the Canadian Bar Association’s Code of Professional Conduct.

In the end, the trial judge dismissed the application for a mistrial. The Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge’s written reasons for refusing defence counsel’s mistrial application were remarkably long: 64 single-spaced pages with 49 footnotes. The Court also noted that, throughout his reasons, the trial judge’s displeasure towards defence counsel was “palpable” and even insulting at times.

The Appeal

While the Ontario Court of Appeal ultimately allowed a new appeal on the ground of improper instructions to the jury and dismissed the appeal on reasonable apprehension of bias, they provided substantial commentary on the issue of bias. In particular, they stated that they were concerned with how the mistrial application was handled

The Court of Appeal noted the following:

• The mistrial application was conducted in an “injudicious manner”;
• When a trial judge feels compelled to intervene they should consider courtesy and restraint;
• Allegations regarding a trial judge’s verbal and non-verbal conduct during a trial are serious;
• The duty of the trial judge to maintain composure during the course of a trial is important;
• The trial judge’s conduct was not a model of “judicial decorum”;
• The trial judge is responsible for reducing the stress of conflict;
• The trial judge should not to exacerbate conflict through harsh words, a raised voice, or distracting and hostile non-verbal communications.

However, despite these criticisms, the court did not believe that there was a significant impact to the overall fairness of the trial and that these issues, while improper, did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Conclusion

The decision in this case shows that some tensions and emotions can run high during a criminal trial and result in some conflict between defence counsel and the trial judge. While a trial judge has a duty to exercise courtesy and restraint, a substantial amount of discretion is given to the trial judge on how to conduct a trial. The Court of Appeal clearly sent a message to trial judges by criticizing the conduct of the trial judge in this case, but in the end they would not have concluded that his behaviour gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Although reasonable apprehension of bias is a possible ground of appeal, it is clear from this decision that the bar for establishing bias based on the conduct of a judge can be quite high.

Section 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms confers the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. As such, the detention of accused individuals is intended to be the exception, while pre-trial release is the rule. Additionally, the presumption of innocence enshrined in section 11(d) of the Charter provides that one’s liberty should not be taken away prior to conviction, unless justified under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code. Therefore, release with the least onerous conditions is generally favoured over pre-trial detention.

Section 525 of the Criminal Code

Section 525 of the Criminal Code requires a judicial review of an accused’s detention if the trial has not begun within 90 days. The purpose of this section is to avoid accused persons languishing in pre-trial custody for extended periods of time while awaiting their trial.

There are sound reasons for this. It is more difficult for accused individuals held in pre-trial custody to access legal advice and effectively instruct their counsel. Section 525 provides the opportunity to have a judge reconsider whether the continued detention of an accused person is justified when a trial is not held within 90 days. It is a safeguard that protects an accused’s liberty and is consistent with the presumption of innocence enshrined in section 11(e) of the Charter.

However, until recently, there were two competing lines of authority in British Columbia about how to interpret section 525 detention review hearings. One line of authority ruled that section 525 required a two-step process. The first step required the accused to establish unreasonable Crown delay in bringing the case to trial. If established, the accused then had the burden to show a material change in circumstances under the normal section 515(10) bail provision of the Criminal Code. The other line of authority favoured a one-step process that did not place an onus on the accused to prove unreasonable delay prior to their bail review under section 525. Guidance was needed to determine which of these two competing lines of authority were correct.

Pre-Trial Custody: Corey Myers’ Experience

On March 28, 2019 the Supreme Court of Canada handed down a unanimous decision of nine Justices in R v. Myers 2019 SCC 18 that effects accused persons in pre-trial custody. The Court unanimously ruled that an accused does not need to establish unreasonable delay in bringing him to trial in order to justify his release under section 525 of the Code. In other words, the Court ruled that section 525 is a one-step, and not a two-step, process.

Corey Myers was arrested and charged with multiple firearm offences in January of 2016. He first sought bail after completing a prior sentence in November 2016, but his application was dismissed as the suggested terms of his bail did not sufficiently address the risk that Myers might commit further offences.

In March 2017, the Crown began a review hearing under section 525 as the 90-day detention period had expired. The British Columbia Supreme Court determined that the test for a section 525 hearing was a two-step process. This provided no recourse for Myers to challenge his detention order as there had been no unreasonable delay in bringing him to trial.

In January 2018, Myers pled guilty to reduced charges and was sentenced to 30 months in prison. However, Myers appealed the British Columbia Supreme Court’s decision that a section 525 bail review hearing required him to show there was unreasonable delay in getting him to trial before he could successfully get bail under that section. Although the appeal was moot since Myers was no longer in pre-trial custody, the Supreme Court of Canada exercised its discretion to hear the appeal anyway.

Pre-Trial Custody: The New Approach

In Myers, the Court unanimously set forth a new procedure for detention review hearings. The Court ruled that section 525 is an automatic provision laying mandatory obligations on the jailer and judge. Now, the jailer must apply for the hearing immediately after the 90-day period has expired and a judge must set a date and give notice of the hearing to the accused. The accused is not required to prove unreasonable delay in getting to trial to get such a review.

The Court found that Parliament created section 525 to allow a judicial assessment of whether the continued detention of the accused is justified under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code. That section sets out three possible grounds to justify the detention of an accused: where it is necessary to ensure the accused attends court; where it is necessary to protect the safety of the public; and where it is necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. The Court found that the right to a section 525 review is automatically triggered after 90 days. The Court further ruled that there is no additional requirement to also prove unreasonable delay in getting to trial beyond 90 days in order to succeed and be released from custody.

The judge in a detention review hearing may consider new evidence, changes in the accused’s circumstances, unreasonable delay, and the rationale for the original detention order, in addition to the evidence and submissions in prior bail hearings. Finally, the judge has the discretion under sections 525(9) and 526 to expedite the trial of a detained accused, giving consideration to the risk of unconstitutional delay.

Pre-Trial Custody: Call Filkow Law

The Myers decision represents a significant change in the law and process surrounding pre-trial detention which will no doubt impact the number of accused persons who seek their release from custody after an initial detention order.

For more information regarding pre-trial custody, call Filkow Law for help.

Cannabis legalization is on the horizon for Canada. There have been many announcements regarding the distribution and possession of marijuana but an additional matter is the impact that this will have on impaired driving. There are pending changes on the federal level but the BC government is proposing to introduce a whole new scheme creating Immediate Roadside Prohibitions for driving while impaired by marijuana and other drugs.

There is much uncertainty about this as there is no established system or method for detecting impairment by marijuana. There are indications that there may be technology in the future that will allow for the presence of marijuana via a saliva test but it is unknown how effective this will be. This leaves police officers with limited options roadside to deal with drivers that they believe are high. Previously, it was common for police officers to issue a 24-hour prohibition for drugs in cases where the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a drivers ability to operate a vehicle was impaired by drugs. This did not have a review procedure in place.

Often times it involved the administration of the Standard Field Sobriety Test or the Drug Recognition Exam by an officer trained in these techniques. Both tests have their issues in that they often can result in false positives. Even blood tests can make it difficult to determine if someone is impaired by marijuana as there is little scientific information available on how much THC needs to be detected in someone’s blood before they are actually impaired. THC can linger in someone’s blood for days or weeks, long after someone is no longer affected by it. This is especially true for medical marijuana users.

Driving While High: Changes To Impaired Driving Law In BC

The proposed changes create two new driving prohibitions in BC. They will expand upon the 12-hour prohibition for N and L drivers (Class 7 and 7L licenses). Currently, Class 7 drivers cannot have any alcohol in their system while driving. The proposed legislation will expand that to include drugs as well, detected by a “drug screening device”. There is no indication of what these devices will be. This is concerning as 12-hour prohibitions have no review procedure in place.

The recourse to dispute one is via judicial review in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, something that is not accessible to the average person and expensive to retain legal counsel for. 12-hour prohibitions also result in RoadSafetyBC prohibiting a Class 7 driver for a longer period, usually by several months. If a driver refuses to comply with a demand to provide a sample for a “drug screening device” they will also receive a 12-hour prohibition. It is concerning that a lengthy driving prohibition in the length of months will result from a prohibition with no established review procedure.

The more serious offence that is being created is a 90-day immediate roadside prohibition for drugs, similar to the current roadside prohibition available for alcohol. This provides three ways for a police officer to issue you a 90-day prohibition; a blood test showing above a specified level in your blood within 2 hours of driving, or having a combination of a specified level of alcohol and drugs in your blood.

These 90-day reviews will have specified grounds of review. These include consuming the drugs after ceasing operation of the vehicle (and that the driver had no reasonable expectation that they would be required to provide a sample of blood), that the person was not impaired by drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol and the results of the evaluation were due to a medical condition. Much alike the 90-day alcohol immediate roadside prohibitions for alcohol, the demands and testing will mirror the provisions in the Criminal Code.

Given the forthcoming changes to the Criminal Code on impaired driving regarding alcohol and drugs, these are likely going to be contested in court. The taking of blood samples is an intrusive means and not easily accomplished roadside by police officers. Furthermore, current drug impairment testing procedures have many options for false positives and inaccurate results.

Impaired Driving In BC? Call Filkow Law

This will be an interesting development in driving law and will likely result in extensive legal disputes. The tests that are yet to be established will be fundamental to this regime, and its fairness as there is no current effective manner to detect drug impairment. As we are familiar and successful in both criminal impaired driving and the existing IRP scheme, we look forward to assisting our clients with defending charges under this pending regime. If you need assistance with an impaired driving case in BC, call Filkow Law today.