Bill C-14: How Canada’s New Bail and Sentencing Reforms Are Reshaping Criminal Defence in Vancouver and Beyond

by | Jun 23, 2026 | Crime, Criminal Attorney, Legal Rights, Media, Uncategorized

As a Vancouver criminal defence lawyer with years of experience navigating the complexities of the Criminal Code and Charter rights in British Columbia courts, I’ve seen firsthand how shifts in bail and sentencing can profoundly affect accused persons, their families, and the justice system itself. Just days ago, on June 15-16, 2026, the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act (Bill C-14) received Royal Assent, ushering in over 80 targeted amendments to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and related statutes. These changes, set to come into force on July 15, 2026, represent one of the most significant overhauls to bail and sentencing in recent memory.

For those facing criminal charges in Vancouver, Surrey, or across B.C., understanding these reforms isn’t optional—it’s essential. In this post, I break down the key developments, their legal context, practical implications for defendants and practitioners, and what they mean for the future of Canadian criminal law.

The Hook: Public Safety vs. Presumption of Innocence

Canadians have grown increasingly concerned about repeat violent offending, auto theft rings, home invasions, and organized crime. Bill C-14 responds directly to these pressures, backed by input from law enforcement, provinces (including B.C.), and victims’ advocates. Proponents argue it will keep dangerous individuals off the streets while restoring public confidence in the justice system.

Critics, including defence counsel and civil liberties groups, caution that expanded reverse onus provisions, restrictions on sureties, and mandatory consecutive sentences risk tilting the scales too far, potentially leading to unnecessary pre-trial detention and longer sentences that may not always serve rehabilitation or proportionality goals. As defence lawyers, our role remains to zealously advocate within this new framework—protecting Charter rights under sections 11(d) (presumption of innocence), 11(e) (reasonable bail), and 7 (liberty and security of the person).

Key Changes to Bail Laws: Harder Release for Certain Accused

The reforms introduce stricter bail procedures, particularly targeting repeat and violent offenders. Here are the highlights:

•  Expanded Reverse Onus Provisions: New reverse onus rules apply to offences like home break-and-enter, human trafficking, human smuggling, assaults or sexual assaults involving choking/suffocation/strangulation, and violent extortion. For those with multiple prior violent convictions, the burden shifts to the accused to justify release. Existing reverse onuses (e.g., for certain weapon offences) have been expanded from 5 to 10 years.

•  Refinements to Core Principles: The “principle of restraint” (favouring release at the earliest opportunity) is clarified—not a blanket mandate for release if detention is justified for public safety. The “ladder principle” (least onerous conditions first) no longer applies in reverse onus cases. Courts must now explicitly consider random or unprovoked violence, the number/seriousness of outstanding charges, and stronger weapons prohibitions.

•  Surety and Conditions Restrictions: Individuals convicted of serious offences in the past 10 years are generally barred from acting as sureties. Courts must scrutinize bail plans more rigorously in reverse onus scenarios and consider specific conditions (e.g., curfews, geographic limits, no-contact orders) for offences like auto theft or home invasion.

These changes build on Supreme Court of Canada precedents like R. v. Antic (2017) on the ladder principle and R. v. St-Cloud (2015) on the tertiary ground for detention, but they codify a more cautious approach. In B.C. courts, where backlogs and resource pressures are real, expect more contested bail hearings and potentially higher detention rates for qualifying offences.

Tougher Sentencing: Consecutive Terms and Aggravating Factors

On the sentencing side, Bill C-14 aims to ensure “serious crimes meet serious consequences”:

•  Consecutive Sentences: Mandatory for certain combinations like extortion and arson, or violent auto theft and break-and-enter. Judges must consider consecutive sentences for repeat violent offenders.

•  New Aggravating Factors: Enhanced weight for crimes against first responders or public transit workers, organized retail theft, mischief/theft damaging essential infrastructure (e.g., copper theft), and repeat violent offending.

•  Other Reforms: Ends conditional sentences (house arrest) for certain serious sexual offences; restores driving prohibitions for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death/bodily harm; strengthens fine enforcement.

These align with sentencing objectives in s. 718 of the Criminal Code—denunciation, deterrence, and separation—while giving primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence for repeat auto theft or break-and-enter. They echo trends in cases addressing the “revolving door” of justice, but defence counsel will continue to emphasize mitigating factors like Gladue principles for Indigenous accused, mental health, and rehabilitation potential.

Implications for Practitioners and Defendants in Vancouver Criminal Law

For accused persons in British Columbia, the practical fallout is significant. In Vancouver’s busy courthouses, we may see:

•  Fewer Releases on Serious Charges: Reverse onus cases will demand meticulously prepared bail plans, often with enhanced sureties, electronic monitoring, or treatment programs. Early intervention—gathering character references, proposing robust plans, or challenging weak Crown evidence—becomes even more critical.

•  Sentencing Strategy Shifts: Expect prosecutors to push for consecutive sentences and aggravating factors aggressively. Defence will need to advocate vigorously for concurrent sentencing where possible, highlight proportionality under s. 718.1, and explore alternatives like restorative justice or mental health diversions where available.

•  Charter Challenges Ahead: Many provisions engage s. 11(e) rights. We anticipate litigation testing whether expanded reverse onuses or modified restraint principles unjustifiably limit liberty. Precedents like R. v. Morales (1992) and R. v. Hall (2002) on reverse onus will be central.

•  Youth and Systemic Impacts: Amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act and data collection requirements aim for better tracking, but defence must guard against over-criminalization of young persons.

Locally in B.C., the provincial government has welcomed the changes, signaling preparedness for implementation. However, court resources, bail supervision, and legal aid capacity will be tested. As a Vancouver-based lawyer, I stress that these reforms do not eliminate the presumption of innocence or the right to a fair trial—they recalibrate the balance.

Defendants should contact experienced counsel immediately upon charge. Early strategy can make the difference between pre-trial detention and release, or between a crushing sentence and one tailored to circumstances.

Practical Takeaways for Those Facing Charges

1.  Act Quickly: Bail hearings move fast. Gather evidence for your release plan early—employment, housing, supports, and proposed conditions.

2.  Understand Your Onus: If reverse onus applies, the burden is on you. Strong legal representation is non-negotiable.

3.  Sentencing Preparation: Focus on mitigation from day one. Character letters, expert reports (e.g., psychological), and guilty plea timing matter more than ever.

4.  Stay Informed: Watch for implementation details post-July 15, 2026. Provincial variations in B.C. courts will emerge.

5.  Broader Justice Issues: While tougher laws address public concerns, long-term safety requires investment in prevention, mental health, addiction services, and addressing root causes—areas where defence perspectives remain vital.

Conclusion: Navigating the New Landscape with Vigilance

The Bail and Sentencing Reform Act marks a pivotal moment in Canadian criminal law, driven by demands for accountability amid rising concerns over repeat offending. For Vancouver criminal defence lawyers, it reinforces the need for adaptive, rights-focused advocacy—challenging evidence, crafting compelling release plans, and fighting for proportionate outcomes at sentencing.

While these reforms may deter some crime and protect communities, they also heighten the stakes for every accused person. The justice system must remain fair, not just tough. At our firm, we remain committed to defending the rights of those charged, ensuring that Bill C-14’s changes are applied justly and constitutionally.

If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges in Vancouver or B.C., reach out promptly for a consultation. Knowledge of these developments can be the first step toward the best possible defence.

This blog post is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique—consult a qualified criminal defence lawyer for advice tailored to your situation.

Firearms Charges in Vancouver: What BC Gun Owners Need to Know in 2026

by | Feb 27, 2026 | Crime, Legal Rights

Across Canada, firearms offences appear to be subject to heightened scrutiny. In Vancouver and surrounding communities, these matters are being approached with increased regulatory and prosecutorial attention, particularly in light of the federal government’s firearms buy-back program and legislative amendments that took effect in early 2025.

If you own firearms in BC, it is important to understand how the law operates in 2026 and how expanded regulatory and court powers may affect you.

 

Amendments to the Firearms Act Now in Force

In early 2025, significant amendments to the Firearms Act came into effect. These changes strengthened preventative tools available to authorities where public safety concerns are raised.

While Canada has long maintained a strict licensing and regulatory framework, the 2025 amendments reinforced a precautionary approach. In practical terms, this means that firearms licences can now be suspended or revoked more quickly, and courts can intervene on short notice where safety concerns are alleged.

For lawful gun owners, compliance with storage, transportation, and licensing conditions is more important than ever. Even administrative issues can escalate quickly if not addressed properly.

Immediate Licence Revocation – Section 70.1(1)

One of the most significant provisions now in force is section 70.1(1) of the Firearms Act.

Under this section, a Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) may revoke a person’s firearms licence without delay if the CFO has public safety concerns. This authority allows for immediate administrative action, even in the absence of a criminal conviction.

A revocation under s. 70.1(1) can result in:

  • Immediate loss of your Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL)
  • Seizure of firearms
  • Parallel administrative and criminal proceedings

It is important to understand that a licence revocation is not the same as being found guilty of a criminal offence. However, the practical consequences can be severe. Your ability to lawfully possess firearms may end immediately, and failing to respond properly can expose you to further legal jeopardy.

There are legal mechanisms to challenge revocations, but strict timelines apply. Early legal advice is critical.

“Red Flag” Applications – 30-Day Suspensions

Another significant development is Canada’s red flag framework.

These provisions allow any person to apply to a court for an emergency order suspending another individual’s access to firearms for up to 30 days if there are concerns about that person’s ability to safely possess firearms or other public safety issues.

If granted, a red flag order can:

  • Temporarily suspend a firearms licence
  • Authorize seizure of firearms
  • Be issued on short notice in urgent situations

These applications are civil in nature but can have serious consequences. In some cases, they arise in the context of family disputes, relationship breakdowns, or interpersonal conflicts. Because they can proceed quickly and sometimes without advance warning, responding promptly and strategically is essential.

Increased Prosecutorial Attention to Firearms Offences

Firearms offences in Canada often carry significant penalties, including:

  • Mandatory firearms prohibitions
  • Criminal records
  • Potential imprisonment
  • Long-term restrictions on lawful firearm ownership

In British Columbia, Crown counsel treat firearms matters seriously, particularly where public safety concerns are alleged. We are seeing increased scrutiny in cases involving:

  • Unauthorized possession
  • Unsafe storage
  • Breach of prohibition orders
  • Possession contrary to licence conditions

Firearms cases are legally technical. They often involve a combination of Criminal Code provisions, federal regulatory law, and administrative licensing processes. Small factual details, such as how firearms were stored or transported, can significantly affect the outcome.

The Importance of Experienced Firearms Defence

Not all criminal defence lawyers regularly handle firearms matters. These cases require familiarity not only with criminal procedure, but also with the licensing framework, CFO decision-making processes, and the interaction between administrative and criminal law.

If you have been:

  • Contacted by police regarding a firearms investigation
  • Served with notice that your licence is under review or revoked
  • Named in a red flag application
  • Charged with a firearms-related offence

you should seek legal advice immediately. What you say and how you respond at an early stage can materially affect your case.

 

Contact a firearms defence lawyer at Tarnow Criminal Law today. If you prefer, your initial consultation for firearms-related criminal charges can be conducted securely via encrypted video conferencing software like MSTeams or Zoom. All video consultations are fully confidential and protected by solicitor-client privilege.

Genealogical DNA and Ethics in Law

by | Jan 19, 2024 | Crime, Legal Rights, Media, Police, Wheels Of Justice

How would you feel if your DNA was used to convict a family member?

Last week, news consumers were divided on the use of this tactic to identify and arrest Ibrahim Ali who was recently convicted of the murder and sexual assault of a 13 year old victim in 2017 in Burnaby.

Investigators went undercover at a 2018 Kurdish New Year Celebration handing out samples of tea in hopes of collecting DNA from their suspect – and it worked.  Police were able to obtain a sample from a relative of the suspect. The sample was analyzed and compared against the DNA sample collected from semen found inside the victim, and the results were conclusive: the sample collected at the Kurdish New Year Celebration belonged to the brother of the whomever’s DNA was found inside the victim. This critical development resulted in the positive identification of Ibrahim Ali, his subsequent arrest and ultimately, his conviction.

However, certain civil liberties advocates have decried this investigative strategy, claiming it infringes on the privacy rights of people who have their DNA seized when they themselves are not suspected of any wrongdoing.  Further, genealogical DNA testing is not frequently accessed or available technology in Canada. As a result, the analysis is often done in the United States, further stoking concerns from privacy experts. Police are required to maintain a “chain of custody” for all exhibits in a case. When the exhibits are forensic material, it is especially important that the chain of custody be meticulously maintained. This becomes increasingly difficult when exhibits leave the custody of Canadian agencies.  Further, labs in the United States (and beyond) may not be accredited to the same standard as a Canadian lab. And of course, when private and sensitive material exists in the database of outside agencies, there is always a security risk. 

 

Genealogical DNA testing and its use in criminal law is still very much in its infancy – in Canada, anyways.

This investigational technique gained notoriety in 2018 when it was used to identify and convict the Golden State killer in California, and made headlines again in December 2022 when it was used to identify Bryan Kohberger, currently awaiting trial for the murder of four college students at the University of Idaho.

Canadian Courts and legislators are no doubt paying close attention to developments in the field of Genealogical DNA testing. It is more important now than ever –  in the age of ever-advancing scientific exploration and sophisticated tools like AI – that the Courts, and the law, can maintain pace. 

How to choose the right Vancouver Criminal Defence Lawyer

by | Jul 25, 2022 | Crime, Legal Rights

Being charged with a criminal offence is, without question, one of the most stressful events that can happen to a person. Leaving aside the potential consequences that can arise if one was ever convicted, just having a criminal charge laid against you can bring significant prejudicial effect to one’s life. Depending on what you do for a living, you may have to notify your employer or administrative body that you have been charged. There may be negative publicity which can bring adverse effects to your life. Further, there is undoubtedly a massive amount of stress that comes with being criminally charged.

So how do you choose the best criminal lawyer in Vancouver? There are a lot of lawyers practicing in criminal law who may portray an image that they’re the ‘best’, but are they? There are also lawyers who may simply tell you what you want to hear to get your business by “guaranteeing” you the outcome you want – these are the ones to be most cautious with. No lawyer – and I don’t care how experienced they are or what they claim their success rate is – can or should guarantee you how you matter with end up because the final say rests with the Judge and/or Jury, not the lawyer.

Choosing the right lawyer for your legal matter is an important decision. Not all criminal lawyers have complete knowledge of the Criminal Code. Some specialise in impaired driving, some in sexual assaults, and some in drug investigations. You should speak to a few and make sure the lawyer you are considering to retain has the knowledge and experience to defend and protect your rights best.

One further thing to note is that with the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, many lawyers have had to familiarise themselves with video conferencing technology such as Zoom and MS Teams, because the Courts now use them. What this means to you, the client, is that you can contact and consult with lawyers virtually and outside of your local geographic area, where there may not be so many lawyers depending where you live.

Our lawyers at Tarnow Criminal Law, while physically based in the Vancouver-area, assist clients all around British Columbia and the Yukon Territory. Call our offices to schedule a consultation by telephone, video, or in person.

Bill C-21: Amendment Resentment

by | Feb 23, 2021 | Crime, Legal Rights, Police, Politics, Wheels Of Justice

On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued an Order in Council immediately banning the use, sale and transport of approximately 1,500 “assault” style firearms.  This action was met with criticism from firearm owners, retailers and pro-gun advocates from across the country. A two-year amnesty period for restricted firearm owners will expire on April 30, 2022, which is around the time when Bill C-21 could come into effect.

At its first reading in the House of Commons on February 16, 2021, details about Bill C-21 emerged that created further frustration and confusion among Canadian firearm owners and retailers. Described as “an Act to amend certain Acts and to make consequential amendments (firearms)”, Bill C-21 will make substantive changes to both the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, both of which are Federal legislation, thus impacting Canadians from coast to coast. It will also amend the Immigration and Refugee Act and the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

Proposed amendments to the Criminal Code include:

  1. Increasing the maximum penalty of imprisonment for offences under Sections 95, 96, 99, 100 and 103 of the Criminal Code from 10 years to 14 years;
  2. Establishing a procedure that would allow any person to apply for an emergency prohibition order, or an emergency limitations on access order;
  3. Deem certain firearms to be prohibited devices for certain provisions;
  4. Create a new offence for altering a cartridge magazine to exceed its lawful capacity;
  5. Authorize employees of certain federal entities who are responsible for security to be considered as public officers for the purpose of section 117.‍07

One of the most concerning amendments, and the focus of today’s blog, involves establishing a procedure that would allow for any person to apply for an emergency prohibition order, or an emergency limitations on access order. The proposed amendment reads as follows:

Application for emergency prohibition order

110.‍1 (1) Any person may make an ex parte application to a provincial court judge for an order prohibiting another person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, if the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person against whom the order is sought or of any other person that the person against whom the order is sought should possess any such thing.

An ex parte application does not require notice to be given to the adverse party. This means that any person can make an application to a judge seeking the immediate prohibition (and subsequent seizure) of any of the items described in section 110.1(1).  Success on the application is discussed next:

Emergency prohibition order

(2) If, at the conclusion of a hearing of an application made under subsection (1), the provincial court judge is satisfied that the circumstances referred to in that subsection exist and that an order should be made without delay to ensure the immediate protection of any person, the judge shall make an order prohibiting the person against whom the order is sought from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, for a period not exceeding 30 days, as is specified in the order, beginning on the day on which the order is made.

The seizure process will unfold one of two ways:

Warrant to search and seize

(4) If a provincial court judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person who is subject to an order made under subsection (2) possesses, in a building, receptacle or place, any thing the possession of which is prohibited by the order, and that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any other person, for the person to possess the thing, the judge may issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer to search the building, receptacle or place and seize any such thing, and every authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.

OR:

Search and seizure without warrant

(5) If, in respect of a person who is subject to an order made under subsection (2), a peace officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any other person, for the person to possess any thing the possession of which is prohibited by the order, the peace officer may, where the grounds for obtaining a warrant under subsection (4) exist but, by reason of a possible danger to the safety of the person or any other person, it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant, search for and seize any such thing, and any authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.

The seized items will remain in police custody for 30 days. When the Order expires, the seizing agency (police) must make an application for a Prohibition Order under Section 111(1) of the Criminal Code. This Application requires that the subject of the Order (the firearms/weapons owner) be given notice of the application, and the opportunity to respond in court. At this juncture, there are three ways the seized items can be returned to their owner:

  1. No application is made for a Prohibition Order under Section 111(1);
  2. If the hearing does not result in a Prohibition Order being made under Section 111(5);
  3. If the Order issued at the ex parte application is revoked

While this legislation seeks to establish an alternative procedure that gives the public power to seek protection from violence involving firearms and other weapons, it fails to address the possibility that this power could be abused. Currently, the law requires that an individual report their concerns to the police, who would then engage in an investigation to determine whether a seizure is necessary. When citizens assume this authority, there are a myriad of complications that could pose negative consequences not only to the potential subject of the Order, but to whomever makes the ex parte application. It requires that they take the law into their own hands – something that law enforcement regularly counsels against.

Bill C-21 is still in the early stages of the legislative process, but has garnered both support and criticism from those it will protect, and those it will harm.

It is what it is…or is it?

by | Jan 20, 2021 | Crime, Legal Rights, Police, Social Media, Wheels Of Justice

The internet is a precarious place. We buy, we sell, we talk – and we post. And while that’s all fine and good, it isn’t without consequence. Facebook launched in 2004, and since that time Canadian Courts have addressed and analyzed evidence obtained through Facebook and other social media platforms.

Recently, in a 2-1 decision, in R. v. Martin, 2021 NLCA 1, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal overturned a lower court’s decision deeming Facebook screenshots as inadmissible. In a 30 page decision, the Court of Appeal explained how the Provincial Court Judge (“PCJ”) had erred in their analysis of the rules of authentication in relation to the proposed electronic evidence.

The case involves allegations that the Accused, Mr. E. Martin, made threats against the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (police), via pictures and written communication on Facebook. He was charged with being in possession of a knife for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, being in possession of a rifle for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, and uttering a threat to members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

The police had attended Mr. Martin’s residence one evening to follow up on a domestic disturbance complaint. The investigation went no further than a brief attendance at the Accused’s residence, which resulted in no further action being taken.

The investigation with respect to the charges in this case began when the police received an anonymous tip that the Accused had posted several pictures on Facebook indicating he planned to harm police.

It was the evening following their first visit to Mr. Martin’s residence that the police received the anonymous tip that indicated he had posted a menacing caption, directed at police, combined with photos that included firearms. The police again attended Mr. Martin’s residence, but were clearly not welcomed. They returned to the detachment and tried to view Mr. Martin’s Facebook page, but were unable to view any content. The police then contacted the anonymous tipster to ask if they would email pictures of the postings, which they did. In total, six screen shots were forwarded. The “screenshots” depicted an individual in various poses, kneeling with and holding various firearms that included a rifle and a long gun. The words “Ed’s Post” and “Ed Martin added 4 new photos” appeared as “banners” over the photos, in the typical Facebook font and symbolism.

These screenshots were at the centre of the Crown’s firearms and threats charges against the Accused. A Voir Dire was held to determine the admissibility of the screen shots. Ultimately, the PCJ declined to admit the photos as evidence, reasoning that these items had failed to be authenticated. The PCJ opined that since the anonymous tipster had not been called to give evidence, no one could testify that the screenshots were not altered or changed in anyway. The Court went further to say that there had been nothing to substantiate that the Accused even had a Facebook account, and even if they did, there was no way to determine conclusively that the Accused had been the one to author the posts depicted in the screenshots.

The Accused was convicted of being in possession of a knife for a dangerous purpose (which was found on him at the time of his arrest) but was acquitted on the charges of being in possession of a rifle for a dangerous purpose to the public peace, and uttering a threat to members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. The Crown appealed the PCJ’s decision to rule the screenshots inadmissible – which brings us to the Court of Appeal’s analysis of the issue.

The Court of Appeal was thorough and careful to reiterate its explanation of a key component in their analysis: the threshold for admissibility of authenticated electronic documents under the Canada Evidence Act is low, and can be established by both direct and secondary evidence. The proposed electronic evidence must be capable of supporting a finding that the evidence sought to be admitted is what it purports to be.

The Crown submitted that the PCJ had been erroneous in ruling that the screenshots were not authenticated by the evidence adduced at Trial. At the Voir Dire, 10 witnesses, all police officers, were called including the officer who began the investigation and obtained the screenshots. This police officer testified that he was very familiar with the layout of Facebook, and the screenshots were consistent with what he knows of Facebook. While not accepted by the PCJ as an acceptable form of authentication, the Court of Appeal disagreed and suggested that the officer’s testimony was evidence that the screenshots were authentic. Further, the police officer testified about identifying striking similarities between what they saw when they were in attendance at the Accused’s home – clothing, personal items, layout of the residence – that mirrored what they had seen in two of the screenshots. The Court of Appeal found that this information aided in the authentication of the screenshots, and determined that it was not necessary to have the anonymous tipster’s testimony verifying their authenticity. No evidence to the contrary was introduced by the Defence.

The Court of Appeal stressed that authenticity does not determine authorship – meaning that although the evidence is admissible, it is not determinative of who actually authored the post. As a result of their analysis, the Crown’s appeal was allowed and the case was returned back to Provincial Court for further proceedings. As is standard practice, the Court of Appeal did not comment on what probative value the evidence may have.

The introduction of digital evidence in criminal proceedings will continue to create a myriad of issues for the courts to determine. The Charter was not written with these intricacies in mind – and the responsibility lays not only with the courts, but in the hands of criminal lawyers across the country. If your case involves digital evidence (social media postings, text messages, etc.) it is imperative that you contact experienced and seasoned counsel without delay. We are licensed to practice in British Columbia, the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories.