Bill C-75: An Act to relieve judicial delay

Bill C-75 received Royal Assent on June 21, 2019. The Act amends the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act (“YCJA”), the Victim Surcharge Bill (C-28), the Exploitation and Trafficking in Persons Bill (Bill C-38), and the Unconstitutional provisions Bill (Bill C-39).


Lacking a comprehensive amendment since 1972, the bail provisions of the Criminal Code have been revised to address concerns that have been mounting for several decades. The Act seeks to simplify the judicial interim release process by expanding the conditions on which the police can release an Accused person, thereby making an appearance before a Justice unnecessary. The Act will also seek to reduce judicial delay by ensuring that release conditions are not redundant, unrealistic or overly complex, and that sureties are not overburdened.

If successful, the amendments relating to bail will result in fewer Administration of Justice Offences (“AOJO”) being brought before the Canadian courts. In any event, the Act has laid new framework by which these offences will be dealt with. Offences of this nature are offences that are “committed against the integrity of the justice system”, including but not limited to: failing to comply with bail conditions (no contact, no-go, abstinence alcohol/drugs to name a few), failure to appear in court, and breach of probation. Amendments to the Act provide that these offences will be directed to a judicial referral hearing when appropriate, as opposed to immediately laying a breach charge. At a judicial referring hearing, rather than focus on the guilt or innocence of the accused, the Judge will review the conditions imposed, and will decide how to proceed. Judicial referral hearings will not appear on a person’s criminal record – however, if a person does not appear for their hearing, the investigating police officer may use their discretion to either drop or proceed with the charge. Since Administration of Justice Offences account for about 4 out of every 10 incidents reported by police, removing these matters from the traditional court process will likely have a substantial impact on managing judicial delay.

The Act amends several portions of the YCJA. Firstly, it limits the conditions that can be placed on a young person upon their release from custody, in hopes of avoiding breaches that occur only due to unnecessarily rigid conditions. The intended result will be lower frequencies of Administration of Justice Offences. Additionally, prosecutors will no longer be obligated to consider an adult sentence for youth charged with serious violent offences, and are no longer obligated to bring that decision to the attention of the Court. The Crown will also not be obligated to consider an adult sentence for a youth convicted of a serious, violent offence.

In the interests of addressing delay, the Act has also removed certain elements of the judicial process, many of which could likely hinder an Accused person’s ability to make full answer and defence to the charges against them. Firstly, the Act restricts the availability of Preliminary Inquiries to offences that carry a maximum punishment of 14 years or more in prison (previously, any indictable offence could attract a Preliminary Hearing). Preliminary Hearings are an excellent opportunity for the Crown, Defence and Judge to assess the strength of the prosecution’s case. It assists with judicial case management, providing insight into the length of time required for witnesses to give their evidence, issues requiring a Voir Dire, and the number of days required for trial. In certain instances, it may also provide an opportunity for the defence to consider a resolution proposal, in circumstances where the evidence presented guides such a decision. Additionally, the Act permits Judges to limit the issues explored during a Prelim, and which witnesses may be called. It goes without saying that indictable matters aside from first degree murder and aggravated sexual assault are deserving of a Preliminary Hearing. 

The Act also modifies the procedure for jury selection. Peremptory challenges, which allowed counsel to reject a potential juror without requiring a reason, have been abolished. There were serious concerns surrounding the misuse of peremptory challenges to ensure the jury was of a particular composition – one that would be adverse to the interests of the Accused.

The objective of the Act, broadly, is to reduce judicial delay by targeting and eliminating systemic flaws that impede the wheels of justice from turning as they should – but constitutional challenges are still to be expected.

If you’ve been charged with a criminal offence, it is crucial that you contact an experienced criminal lawyer without delay. We are conveniently located in Richmond, B.C., only a few steps away from Brighouse Station on the Canada Line, which brings you from various locations in Metro Vancouver in 20 minutes. We service all areas of the lower mainland (including but not limited to Surrey, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, North Vancouver, and Abbotsford) the interior of B.C. (including but not limited to Cranbrook, Kelowna, Kamloops, and Salmon Arm), Northern B.C. (including but not limited to Prince George, Prince Rupert, and Quesnel) and in the Yukon Territory where we offer services in Whitehorse, Dawson City, Faro, Mayo, and Old Crow. Contact our office today to speak to a criminal defence lawyer without delay. 

Booze cruise: Drinkin’ and Paddlin’


Impaired operation of a vehicle/vessel is illegal in British Columbia, the Yukon Territory, and really, across our entire nation. However, you may be surprised to learn that police agencies haven’t always exercised their discretion when determining what constitutes a “vessel”. We all know it is against the law to drive your motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and common sense dictates that this also applies to motorcycles, and motorized boats – but did you know that it is (apparently) just as unlawful to knock back a few and go for a ride in your canoe?


Yes, the word “vessel” does not limit illegality to motorized methods of passage. Police agencies across Canada have been known to charge individuals for tipsy transport via canoe.

If you make the smart choice to ride your bicycle to/from the bar, and your swerving attracts the attention of police, you might be ticketed with public intoxication – but not impaired driving.

If you get caught canoeing down the Fraser River, you could potentially be charged with impaired operation of a vehicle/vessel – and if convicted, you would likely lose your driver’s license.

Even though you don’t need a license to operate a canoe, it probably isn’t smart to be drunk on the water. While you’re unlikely to harm anyone else, open water and alcohol don’t mix very well. You could end up paying big penalties for impaired operation of a canoe, the highest of which would be your life if you happen to fall overboard.

But, if you don’t heed my advice & find yourself being breathalyzed canoe-side – “thar she blows…. over .08”, contact our office to discuss your options.

We are conveniently located in Richmond, B.C. only a few steps away from Brighouse Station on the Canada Line, which brings you from various locations in Metro Vancouver in 20 minutes. We service all areas of the lower mainland (including but not limited to Surrey, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, North Vancouver, and Abbotsford) the interior of B.C. (including but not limited to Cranbrook, Kelowna, Kamloops, and Salmon Arm), Northern B.C. (including but not limited to Prince George, Prince Rupert, and Quesnel) and in the Yukon Territory where we offer services in Whitehorse, Dawson City, and Old Crow. Contact our office today for your initial consultation.

You have the right to remain silent…so, why don’t you?

What you say CAN and WILL be used  you (seriously)!

 

I think it is important to discuss the importance of exercising constitutional rights/freedoms. In particular, the right to remain silent when being questioned by law enforcement about alleged criminal activity.

Why does this seem to be the one freedom that no ordinary citizen wants to evoke? It is understandable of course – to a point. Yes, you want to be respectful and cooperative to with the police in the course of their investigation. This means conducting yourself maturely and appropriately, and politely advising the officer that you wish to exercise your right to silence – meaning you do not wish to have any further discussions whatsoever.

And you definitely are not taking the lie detector test.

There is a difference between cooperating and conceding.  Exercising your constitutional right to remain silent does not indicate guilt – it does absolutely nothing except protects your best interests, liberty, and quite literally your freedom (depending on circumstances).

Assuming guilt as a result of silence is what’s known as an adverse inference – and in the realm of criminal justice in Canada, an Accused person is protected from such an insinuation. So, there really is no downside to the advice that seems to evade people during times of crucial importance: don’t talk to the police. Remain silent. Protect your best interests. Seek legal advice. Trust the guidance you receive from seasoned legal professions. We have dedicated our livelihood to protecting the fundamental and inherent rights awarded to every single individual in this country – but in order to obtain the best possible outcome, you, the client, must have confidence in your legal counsel’s ability as your advocate.

This is best demonstrated by being mindful of the first piece of advice you will receive: DO. NOT. TALK. TO. POLICE.

Instead, advise them that any dealings they wish to have with you should be done through your criminal defence lawyer. Once retained, a criminal lawyer becomes the conduit between you and the police. This not only ensures that all communications will be appropriate and methodical – it also provides a new point of contact for the police generally.

Here is a short (non-exhaustive) list of circumstances under which seeking legal advice is strongly recommended:

1) You have been arrested and charged with a criminal offence;

2) You have been contacted by the police for a statement, interview, etc and you are unsure if you are being looked at as a suspect;

3) There is a warrant out for your arrest; or

4) You have reason to believe you will be investigated, arrested, or charged in the near future.

We are conveniently located in Richmond, B.C. only a few steps away from Brighouse Station on the Canada Line, which brings you from various locations in Metro Vancouver in 20 minutes. We service all areas of the lower mainland (including but not limited to Surrey, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, North Vancouver, and Abbotsford) the interior of B.C. (including but not limited to Cranbrook, Kelowna, Kamloops, and Salmon Arm), Northern B.C. (including but not limited to Prince George, Prince Rupert, and Quesnel) and in the Yukon Territory where we offer services in Whitehorse, Dawson City, and Old Crow.

Whether the crime is violent (assault, aggravated assault, sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, manslaughter, murder), financial (fraud over/under $5,000, possession of stolen credit cards, forgery), or falls under any other category, the experienced criminal defence lawyers at Tarnow Law Offices are well equip and ready to help navigate you through this difficult time from start to finish.

Hands Free (and neck) (and shoulder)

Ian Pumphrey was back before the Yukon Courts earlier this week to represent himself in an Appeal launched by the Yukon Government.

In January of 2015, the Honourable Judge Luther found that Pumphrey wasn’t breaking the law by talking on the phone while driving, having his cellphone suspended between his ear and shoulder. It is, of course, illegal to drive while talking on your cellphone in the Yukon Territory – however, hands free devices are permitted. Since Mr. Pumphrey clearly was not using his hands to talk on the phone, he was not in violation of any regulations of the Motor Vehicle Act.

The Yukon Government appealed Judge Luther’s decision before a Supreme Court Judge, saying that in dismissing the ticket, he took the meaning of “hands free” too literally.

Mr. Pumphrey is of the opinion that the Government’s appeal is a waste of time and money – that would be better spent clarifying the legislation. He also stated that he will be seeking $15,000 in compensation from the Yukon Government in relation to all of the time he has spent working on the Appeal.

The Supreme Court Judge reserved decision on the matter.

Legal Aid Crisis in British Columbia

The Legal Aid crisis in B.C. is set to peak in early 2014, and criminal lawyers across the Province are preparing to halt services between the dates of February 17th, and March 30th of 2014. This means that Trials for offences ranging from impaired driving, shoplifting, assault, murder, you name it, that are currently scheduled for that time period, will be adjourned to later dates. What could cause such chaos and delay in our Court system? You guessed it – Provincial Government funding cuts. And it isn’t just a small percentage that lawyers would see taken off of their earnings during February and March – they wouldn’t be getting paid. At all.

The legal aid system in B.C. has taken blow after blow over the last 10 years, making it increasingly difficult for those with a low income to have access to sound legal advice. After the Legal Services Society recently announced that the criminal tariff faced a $2.5 million dollar deficit (driven by Stephen Harper’s new Safe Streets and Communities Act I might add, along with other Federal political initiatives), they declared that they had no choice but to deny lawyers payment for their services in the aforementioned time frame.

This is a serious issue. Our Court system is already severely backlogged, and this 6 week long hiatus is only going to going to cause catastrophic scheduling conflicts.  Those scheduling conflicts could lead to the frailties in the administration of justice in our Province.

While the Legal Services Society is still set to meet with the Attorney General of B.C. to discuss these ever-growing problems, we are unlikely to see a resolution in the near future. Where there is no money in the budget, there can be no service provided.

Legal Aid is an essential component of our justice system; it protects the most vulnerable in our society. It is clear that British Columbia’s Provincial government doesn’t have societies best interests in mind, and shows no signs of having a change of heart.

RiotTV: a political stunt

This week, British Columbia’s Attorney General, Shirley Bond, announced that the government would abandon the direction it gave to Crown prosecutors to make Applications to televise the legal proceedings of those accused of crimes relating to Vancouver’s Stanley Cup riot. The government appears to have had this change of heart after it’s first Application was dismissed against Mr. Ryan Dickenson – who is the first person being sentenced in in relation to the riot. The judge felt that the Crown did not provide enough information to support the Application – namely the cost associated with televising these legal proceedings.

I really could go on & on about how inappropriate I felt these “RiotTV” applications were in the first place. I am a firm believer that cameras have no purpose in our courtrooms. Of course, there is the reasonable argument of transparency and that having cameras would better educate people on how the justice system functions. But to those people I say walk down to your local courthouse, read case law, order transcripts of court proceedings, if you’re so inclined. The risks of having cameras in courtrooms, in my opinion, far outweigh the benefits. A criminal trial is a ‘truth-seeking’ exercise. Witnesses may be hesitant to give full accounts of their evidence if they know the world is watching them. Lawyers may tailor their questioning of witnesses for the same reasons. Judges may be reluctant to decide a case in a certain way if it is deemed to be unpopular with the public. Prosecutors worry about their personal safety. In fact, all participants in a criminal trial worry about their personal safety. No one wants their face frozen in time on YouTube – and in this day and age, that is what happens. I see what happens on TV in American courtrooms and I do not want Canada’s justice system to go there.

But why did Premier Christy Clark demand that these particular offenders be put on TV? She said something along the lines of “well they committed their crimes on camera, therefore they should have no problem being dealt with by the courts while on camera”.

The logic in that is ridiculous. I have had dozens of clients who’s criminal acts have been captured on CCTV cameras – for murder, break & enter, sexual assault, DUI’s and drug offences. Crimes, which I argue, are far worse than some of my clients who stand charged in relation to Vancouver’s riot.

So why didn’t the government seek to televise these other crimes caught on camera? Because there was nothing to be gained politically from doing so.

The fact of the matter is this: June 15, 2011 was an awful day in Vancouver’s history and the government tried to gain politically from what happened that day. In doing so, they tried to interfere with the justice system’s independence. This ultimately blew up in their face. The BC Liberals are quite out of touch with the ailing state of our justice system – and it is largely due to the financial cutbacks they imposed over the last decade. Legal Aid is seriously reduced for those who need legal representation. We need more judges. We need more sheriffs. The system is in crisis.

RiotTV was nothing more than a political stunt. I accept that being “tough on crime” is attractive to voters – but the manner in which the government tried to appear tough on crime was only intended as a diversion from the real problems our justice system is facing. I think the public saw through the political stunt from the beginning – and the public will remember this when the next provincial election is called.