by Jason Tarnow | Jul 20, 2026 | Crime, Criminal Attorney, Legal Rights, Police, Politics, Uncategorized, Wheels Of Justice
Bill C-14, the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act, received Royal Assent on June 15, 2026, and its bail and sentencing provisions took effect one month later. It amends the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and the National Defence Act across more than 80 clauses.
The federal government announced these reforms in Surrey, BC — no accident. British Columbia’s Attorney General actively lobbied for them, and BC courts will be among the busiest laboratories for how they play out. Here is what the new law actually does, and what it means for accused persons in this province.
Key Takeaways
- Bill C-14’s bail reforms came into force on July 15, 2026, creating seven new reverse-onus categories where the accused — not the Crown — must justify release.
- The “ladder principle” from R. v. Antic, 2017 SCC 27 no longer applies to reverse-onus cases, and Parliament has re-framed the principle of restraint.
- The lookback period for the weapons-violence reverse onus has doubled from 5 to 10 years.
- Courts must now weigh the number and seriousness of outstanding charges under the tertiary ground, and new surety restrictions limit who can supervise your release.
- A properly prepared release plan matters more than ever — and Charter challenges under s. 11(e) are all but certain.
What Is Bill C-14, the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act?
Bill C-14 is one of three criminal justice bills passed in June 2026, alongside the Combatting Hate Act and the Protecting Victims Act. Its stated targets are repeat violent offending, organized crime, extortion, auto theft, and intimate partner violence.
On the bail side, the Act rewrites core parts of Part XVI of the Criminal Code — the judicial interim release provisions centred on s. 515. On the sentencing side, it adds aggravating factors, mandates consecutive sentences for certain offence combinations, removes conditional sentences for serious sexual offences, and restores driving prohibitions for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm.
In my practice, the bail amendments are the ones with immediate, daily consequences. Sentencing changes bite months or years into a prosecution. Bail changes bite within hours of arrest.
The New Reverse Onuses: Detention Is Now the Starting Point for More People
Under s. 515, the default rule has always been that the Crown must show cause why an accused should be detained. A “reverse onus” flips that presumption: the accused must show cause why they should be released. Bill C-14 creates new reverse onuses for:
- violent or organized crime-related auto theft;
- break and enter of a dwelling-house;
- trafficking in persons and human smuggling;
- assaults and sexual assaults involving choking, suffocation, or strangulation;
- extortion involving violence; and
- any serious violent offence where the accused has two or more prior convictions for similar offences.
Two further changes deserve close attention. First, the existing reverse onus for offences involving violence with a weapon now reaches back 10 years into an accused’s record instead of 5. A conviction from 2017 that would have been irrelevant at a bail hearing in June is now determinative of who bears the onus in July. Second, there is a new reverse onus after a finding of guilt where the Crown seeks to revoke bail pending sentencing — a stage where many of my clients previously remained on their existing release.
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of reverse-onus bail provisions in R. v. Pearson, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 665 and struck down an overbroad ground of detention in its companion case R. v. Morales, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711. Whether these new, much broader categories survive s. 11(e) Charter scrutiny — the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause — is a live question that BC courts will confront soon.
The Ladder Principle and the Principle of Restraint After C-14
In R. v. Antic, 2017 SCC 27, the Supreme Court affirmed the “ladder principle”: release on the least onerous terms comes first, and the Crown must justify each step up the ladder toward sureties, cash deposits, and stricter conditions. Three years later, R. v. Zora, 2020 SCC 14 reinforced the principle of restraint, holding that bail conditions must be minimal, necessary, and tied to a specific risk the accused actually poses.
Bill C-14 pushes back on both. Parliament has now legislated that the ladder principle does not apply to accused persons subject to a reverse onus, and has “clarified” that the principle of restraint does not mandate release where detention is justified for public safety. The Act also directs courts to require that a reverse-onus accused clearly demonstrate their bail plan addresses the risks they pose.
Does the case law still matter?
Yes — and this is where the defence work gets interesting. Antic and Zora interpret s. 11(e) of the Charter, not merely the old statutory text. Parliament can amend the Criminal Code; it cannot amend the Charter by ordinary legislation. The Department of Justice’s own backgrounder concedes that the principle of restraint “would continue to apply at common law” even if repealed. Expect defence counsel across BC to argue that the constitutional floor set by the Supreme Court remains exactly where it was on July 14.
Tougher Grounds for Detention, Conditions, and Surety Rules
Beyond the reverse onuses, three changes will shape everyday bail hearings in Vancouver and across the province.
The tertiary ground. Under s. 515(10)(c), bail can be denied to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice — a ground the Supreme Court analyzed in R. v. St-Cloud, 2015 SCC 27. C-14 now requires courts to consider the number and seriousness of an accused’s outstanding charges under this ground. For clients with multiple open files — common in busy urban courts — this raises the stakes considerably.
Random or unprovoked violence. Courts must now weigh whether the allegations involve random or unprovoked violence in every bail decision, alongside the existing intimate partner violence and prior-record factors.
Sureties and conditions. A person convicted of a serious offence within the past 10 years generally cannot act as a surety, unless no other suitable surety exists and naming them is in the interests of justice. Courts must also consider specific conditions — curfews, geographic bans, non-communication orders, weapons prohibitions — for extortion, organized crime, auto theft, and residential break and enter cases.
What This Means for Accused Persons in BC and the Yukon
Here is the practical reality I am already seeing. If you are arrested in British Columbia today on a charge that attracts one of the new reverse onuses, you should assume the Crown will oppose release and that the justice will start from a presumption of detention. The days of showing up to a bail hearing and relying on the Crown’s burden are over for a large class of charges.
What does a criminal defence lawyer in BC examine in this new environment? The factors a defence lawyer will scrutinize include: whether the charge actually falls within a reverse-onus category as pleaded, since Crown charging decisions are not always precise; whether prior convictions relied on for the 10-year lookback genuinely qualify as “similar” offences; the strength and verifiability of the proposed release plan, including residence, employment, treatment, and supervision; the eligibility of proposed sureties under the new disqualification rules; and whether the provision itself is vulnerable to a s. 11(e) challenge on the facts of the case.
The bail plan is now the centre of gravity. A vague promise to “stay out of trouble” was never persuasive; under C-14 it is fatal. A detailed, evidence-backed plan that maps each proposed condition onto each alleged risk is the single most valuable thing counsel can bring into a bail court. That takes preparation before the hearing — which is why retaining counsel immediately after arrest matters more under this regime than it ever has.
For clients in the Yukon, the same Criminal Code amendments apply, but smaller communities and limited court resources make the practical effect of detention even harsher — remand often means transfer far from family and work. Those realities remain relevant considerations on any bail application.
Charter Challenges Are Coming
Every major bail reform in Canadian history has been tested against s. 11(e), and C-14 will be no exception. The pressure points are visible already: the exclusion of the ladder principle for reverse-onus accused, the sheer breadth of the new reverse-onus categories, and the doubled lookback period. Courts will also have to reconcile stricter detention rules with s. 7 liberty interests and with the chronic problem of trial delay under R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 — more people detained longer while awaiting trial creates its own constitutional strain.
None of this means the law will be struck down. It means the first wave of contested bail hearings and reviews under C-14 will shape how much of the old jurisprudence survives. Those arguments are being built in BC courtrooms right now.
Frequently Asked Questions
When did Bill C-14’s bail changes take effect?
The bail and sentencing reforms came into force on July 15, 2026, one month after the Act received Royal Assent on June 15, 2026. They apply to bail hearings held on or after that date.
What is a “reverse onus” at a bail hearing?
Normally the Crown must show cause why an accused should be detained. In a reverse-onus case, the presumption flips: the accused must satisfy the court that detention is not justified. Bill C-14 added seven new categories, including residential break and enter, violent extortion, and assaults involving strangulation.
Can I still get bail if I have a criminal record in BC?
Yes, but the path is harder. Prior convictions within 10 years can trigger a reverse onus for weapons-violence charges, and two or more prior convictions for similar violent offences now do the same. A strong, verifiable release plan and, where possible, a qualified surety become critical.
Who can act as a surety under the new rules?
A surety must generally not have been convicted of a serious offence within the past 10 years. Courts retain a narrow discretion to accept such a person if no other suitable surety is available and it is in the interests of justice.
Do I need a lawyer for a bail hearing?
You are entitled to counsel, and under the new regime the quality of preparation before the hearing often determines the outcome. An unsuccessful bail hearing also limits your options, since subsequent review applications face a higher bar. Speaking with a bail hearing lawyer before your first appearance is strongly advisable.
At my Vancouver criminal defence practice, we remain committed to upholding clients’ rights amid these reforms. If you or a loved one are affected by criminal charges, seeking tailored advice early can make all the difference.
This blog post is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Contact a qualified criminal defence lawyer for advice specific to your situation.
by Jason Tarnow | Jun 8, 2026 | Crime, Criminal Attorney, Politics
As a Vancouver criminal defence lawyer with years of experience navigating British Columbia courts, I’ve seen firsthand how shifts in bail laws can dramatically affect the lives of those accused of crimes. In the past week, fresh developments around Bill C-14, the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act, have kept criminal law practitioners across Canada on high alert. With Senate amendments under consideration by the House of Commons as of early June 2026, this legislation represents one of the most significant overhauls to the Criminal Code in recent memory.
For anyone facing charges in Vancouver or elsewhere in BC, understanding these proposed changes is essential. Whether you’re a first-time accused, a repeat offender, or simply concerned about justice system fairness, this post breaks down the key elements, their implications, and practical takeaways.
Why Bail Reform is Front and Centre in Canadian Criminal Law
Canada’s bail system operates on foundational principles: the presumption of innocence, the right to reasonable bail under section 11(e) of the Charter, and the “ladder principle” from R. v. Antic (2017 SCC 27), which favours the least restrictive conditions necessary. Yet public concern over repeat offenders committing crimes while on release has fueled calls for tougher measures.
Bill C-14, introduced in late 2025, responds with over 80 targeted amendments to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and the National Defence Act. It expands reverse onus provisions, toughens sentencing for violent and organized crime, and recalibrates how justices assess detention. Recent Senate scrutiny and advocacy from groups like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) highlight the tension between public safety and individual rights.
In BC, where Vancouver’s busy courthouses already strain under caseloads, these changes could reshape pre-trial outcomes significantly.
Key Provisions in Bill C-14: Reverse Onus, Sentencing, and More
At its core, Bill C-14 bail reform introduces or expands reverse onus for several serious offences. Accused persons must now demonstrate why they should be released rather than the Crown proving why they should be detained. This applies to offences involving:
- Violence or weapons
- Breaking and entering
- Auto theft
- Organized crime involvement
Additional measures include restrictions on sureties with recent indictable convictions (with Senate-proposed safety valves for discretion) and adjustments to the principle of restraint, potentially reducing emphasis on the ladder principle for certain charges.
On the sentencing side, the bill aims to impose consecutive sentences for major crimes, limits conditional sentences (house arrest) for serious sexual offences, and strengthens tools against repeat violent offenders. These align with broader government efforts to address community safety while responding to criticisms of prior reforms like Bill C-75.
Recent CCLA advocacy urges MPs to adopt Senate amendments, including mandatory consideration of section 493.2 (Criminal Code) factors for vulnerable populations—particularly Indigenous accused—and enhanced annual reporting on pre-trial detention statistics. These “softening” measures seek to mitigate disproportionate impacts on racialized, low-income, and Indigenous communities, which are overrepresented in BC’s justice system.
Implications for Vancouver Criminal Defence Practice
As a Vancouver-based lawyer handling everything from impaired driving to serious indictable matters, I anticipate several practical shifts:
- Higher Detention Rates Pre-Trial: Expanded reverse onus will make it harder to secure release for clients facing listed offences. Defence counsel will need to prepare robust sureties packages, character evidence, and risk mitigation plans earlier. In Vancouver Provincial and Supreme Courts, where bail hearings are already high-stakes, expect more contested tertiary ground arguments (public confidence in justice).
- Impact on Vulnerable Clients: Indigenous clients, those with mental health issues, or from marginalized communities may face heightened challenges. Senate amendments requiring inquiry into s. 493.2 factors could provide a crucial tool, but implementation will depend on judicial training and Crown practices.
- Sentencing Trends: Tougher consecutive sentencing and restricted conditional discharges will push for more creative mitigation strategies. Defence lawyers must emphasize Gladue principles (for Indigenous offenders) and other mitigating factors more forcefully.
- Interaction with Jordan Principles: The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent May 2026 clarifications in cases like R. v. Vrbanic and R. v. Jacques-Taylor affirm the 18/30-month ceilings for trial delays while recognizing complexity exceptions. Faster bail decisions under Bill C-14 could help or hinder, depending on how they affect overall timelines.
In BC, these federal changes intersect with local pressures, including court disruptions anticipated from the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which may force rescheduling of criminal trials in key Vancouver-area venues.
Balanced Analysis: Safety vs. Charter Rights
Critics, including civil liberties groups, argue that Bill C-14 risks eroding the presumption of innocence by detaining more presumptively innocent people, increased overcrowding in remand centres, and disproportionately affecting equity-seeking groups. Proponents counter that it restores balance after perceived leniency, deterring repeat offences and bolstering public trust.
From my perspective in Vancouver criminal law trenches, the truth lies in nuanced application. Blanket “tough on crime” measures rarely solve systemic issues like court backlogs or social determinants of crime. Evidence-based reforms, robust data collection (as Senate amendments propose), and judicial discretion remain vital.
The bill also arrives amid ongoing discussions about intimate partner violence, femicide presumptions, and organized crime – which are all issues that resonate strongly in British Columbia.
Practical Takeaways for Accused Persons and Practitioners
- Early Legal Advice is Critical: If charged, contact an experienced Vancouver criminal lawyer immediately. Bail strategy starts at arrest.
- Build Strong Release Plans: Gather employment letters, treatment programs, sureties, and electronic monitoring options proactively.
- Monitor Legislative Progress: With House consideration of Senate amendments ongoing, the final shape of Bill C-14 could evolve. Stay informed via reliable legal sources.
- Consider Charter Challenges: Overly broad reverse onus or restraint provisions may invite future litigation under sections 7, 11(d), and 11(e).
- For Lawyers: Emphasize individualized assessments. Leverage any preserved judicial discretion and vulnerable-population considerations.
Defence counsel should also prepare for potential increases in Crown appeals of favourable bail decisions.
Conclusion: Navigating Uncertainty in Canadian Criminal Law
Bill C-14 underscores a pivotal moment in Canadian criminal law. While aimed at enhancing safety, its success will hinge on fair implementation that respects Charter protections. For those in Vancouver facing charges, or law students and citizens following justice issues, these developments highlight why competent, zealous representation matters more than ever.
At our firm, we remain committed to advocating for clients amid these shifts, which includes fighting for releases where justified and challenging overreach where necessary. The justice system works best when balanced, evidence-driven, and humane.
This blog post is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges in Vancouver or BC, consult a qualified criminal defence lawyer promptly for personalized guidance.
by Jason Tarnow | Jun 29, 2022 | Crime, Media, Politics
In May of 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that stacking parole ineligibility for multiple murders is unconstitutional under Canadian law.
In 2011, Stephen Harper’s government passed legislation relating to sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code that would allow Judges to impose parole ineligibility far beyond the minimum of 25 years on the offence of First Degree Murder, pursuant to Section 745.51.
Since that time, several sentences have been passed in imposing parole ineligibility, with the most lengthy sentence being no parole eligibility for 75 years in the case of Douglas Garland, who was found guilty of murdering two adults and their grandson. Garland appealed his sentence to the Alberta Court of Appeal, where it was upheld.
It was the case of the Quebec mosque shooter, Alexandre Bissonnette, that resulted in a unanimous decision from all nine Supreme Court Justices to rule that the sentencing provision violated Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, granting protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Bissonnette pleaded guilty to 6 counts of First Degree murder and six counts of attempted murder, and the Crown had asked for a parole ineligibility period of 150 years – 25 consecutive years for each of the six people he murdered – which would have been the harshest sentence handed down in Canada since the abolishment of capital punishment. The presiding Judge declined, and instead sentence Bissonnette to 40 years before he could apply for Parole. Criminal defence counsel appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal in 2020, and the sentence was reduced to 25 years. The Crown then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which led to the landmark decision to cap parole ineligibility at 25 years.
With this decision, those incarcerated under the stacked ineligibility provision are seeking to have their sentences reduced, which has caused a great deal of alarm to the public. It is important to remember that someone convicted of first degree murder will have eligibility at Parole after 25 years – but that does not guarantee their release by any means. The Parole Board looks at many factors when determining whether or not to grant Parole, including the actual offence itself, criminal and social history, rehabilitation efforts, and remorse. Their review of an individuals history when considering release is thorough and rigid. Victim impact statements from family members and loved ones are also taken into consideration.
The decision from the SCC included the following passage:
“This appeal is not about the value of each human life, but rather about the limits of the state’s power to punish offenders.”
This is a reminder that the Court’s decision to limit parole ineligibility is not meant to diminish loss of life, or to favour offenders. It reaffirms that our government, including judicial institutions, must abide by limits to ensure that Canada remains a fair and just society for all.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence in British Columbia (including, but not limited to: Richmond, Vancouver, Surrey, Delta, Langley, Coquitlam, New Westminster, Abbotsford, Victoria, Nanaimo, Kamloops, Kelowna) or the Yukon Territory (including but not limited to: Whitehorse, Dawson City, Watson Lake, Haines Junction, Mayo, Old Crow) contact experienced counsel at Tarnow Criminal Law without delay.
by Jason Tarnow | 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:
- 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;
- Establishing a procedure that would allow any person to apply for an emergency prohibition order, or an emergency limitations on access order;
- Deem certain firearms to be prohibited devices for certain provisions;
- Create a new offence for altering a cartridge magazine to exceed its lawful capacity;
- 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:
- No application is made for a Prohibition Order under Section 111(1);
- If the hearing does not result in a Prohibition Order being made under Section 111(5);
- 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.
by Jason Tarnow | Oct 2, 2020 | Crime, Legal Rights, Media, Police, Politics, Wheels Of Justice
Whenever incidents relating to terrorism in Canada hit the news, the eyes of Canadians widen with revolt. Recent headlines elicited a similar response, with a healthy dose of confusion and curiosity added to the mix.
On September 21, 2020, criminal charges were announced against 25 year old Ontario resident Shehroze Chaudhry – but not due to allegations of committing acts of terrorism. Rather, Chaudhry has been charged under Section 83.231(1) of the Criminal Code – perpetrating a hoax regarding terrorist activity:
83.231 (1) Every one commits an offence who, without lawful excuse and with intent to cause any person to fear death, bodily harm, substantial damage to property or serious interference with the lawful use or operation of property:
(a) conveys or causes or procures to be conveyed information that, in all the circumstances, is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension that terrorist activity is occurring or will occur, without believing the information to be true; or
(b) commits an act that, in all the circumstances, is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension that terrorist activity is occurring or will occur, without believing that such activity is occurring or will occur.
Chaudhry was a frequent guest on an award winning New York Times podcast known as “Caliphate”. He spoke, in gruesome detail, of his time as an ISIS executioner in Syria, among other things. But the charges levelled against him assert that his personal experiences as an ISIS soldier are fabricated.
While the NYT claimed to have verified his role in ISIS, he gave conflicting accounts to CBC, even going so far as to say he would take a polygraph to prove he had never killed anyone. He likely thought this would absolve him any criminal liability relating to terrorism offences in Canada, but the charges against him refute this misconception.
The details released from the police don’t specify if any other person was harmed or killed due to the alleged yarn by Chaudhry, but they will play a determinative role if he is convicted. The sentences range from a fine and imprisonment in a provincial correctional institution if prosecuted summarily, to life imprisonment should Crown proceed by indictment.
Chaudhry’s case demonstrates that Canadian jurisprudence condemns all activity relating to terrorism – whether it’s the real deal or not.
by Jason Tarnow | Sep 28, 2020 | Crime, Legal Aid, Legal Rights, Media, Politics, Social Media, Wheels Of Justice
Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants all Canadians the fundamental right of freedom of expression – but as one young man in Markham, Ontario learned this week, the Charter also permits the enforceme
nt of reasonable limits on expression.
18 year old Tristan Stronach, a grade 12 student, was charged under section 372(2) of the Criminal Code – making indecent communications – after his instructor had to conclude an online lesson after Stronach allegedly made racist remarks about the black community. The nature of the alleged comments, while not described specifically, has caused some to ask: why isn’t he being charged with a hate crime?
The answer is: because there is no specific “hate crime” offence in the Criminal Code.
Section 372(2) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:
Indecent communications
(2) Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to alarm or annoy a person, makes an indecent communication to that person or to any other person by a means of telecommunication.
“But what about hate speech?”
Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:
Public incitement of hatred
319 (1) Everyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of:
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
While it has been made clear that the allegations relate to racist comments towards a single identifiable group – the black community – charges under this section were likely not approved because the evidence is unable to support a conviction. The comments were not made in a “public” place, and while they were made in the virtual presence of a group of individuals, they did not promote hatred – i.e., the comments weren’t made in such a way that they would result in other individuals following suit and creating a breach of the peace as a result.
Notwithstanding the above, if the accused is convicted of making indecent communications, the court will consider to what degree bias, prejudice, or hate played a role. These are aggravating factors that could result in a harsher sentence. Through this legislative structure, these aggravating factors can be considered for a variety of offences – assault, theft, murder, and so on.
As Canadians, we are very fortunate to live in a country that allows us to speak, move, and exist freely – but cases like this are a reminder that equality reigns supreme.
