by Jason Tarnow | Jul 14, 2026 | Crime, Criminal Attorney, Legal Rights, Police, Wheels Of Justice
As a Vancouver criminal defence lawyer with years of experience navigating the complexities of Canadian criminal law in British Columbia courts, I’ve seen firsthand how legislative changes can reshape the justice system. With the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act (Bill C-14) now law and set to take effect on July 15, 2026, we’re on the cusp of significant shifts in how bail hearings and sentencing proceed across Canada, particularly here in Vancouver where issues like organized crime, auto theft, and repeat offending hit close to home.
This timely reform arrives amid ongoing public concerns about community safety in BC. In this post, I’ll break down the key changes in Bill C-14, their legal context, and what they mean for defendants, practitioners, and the broader criminal justice landscape in Vancouver and beyond.
The Road to Bill C-14: Context in Canadian Criminal Law
Bill C-14 introduces over 80 targeted amendments to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and related statutes. It responds to calls from law enforcement, provinces (including BC), and victims’ advocates for stricter measures against violent and repeat offenders, while aiming to maintain Charter protections.
Historically, Canadian bail law has been guided by principles from the Supreme Court of Canada, such as in R. v. Antic (2017), which emphasized the “ladder principle” (least onerous conditions) and the “principle of restraint” favoring release where appropriate. The Charter’s section 11(e) guarantees the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. Sentencing has balanced denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality under section 718 of the Criminal Code.
Bill C-14 refines these without fully upending them, but it tilts the balance toward public safety in specific high-risk scenarios. As reforms come into force this week, defence counsel in Vancouver must adapt quickly.
Key Changes to Bail Laws: Harder for Repeat and Violent Offenders
One of the most impactful areas is bail. Bill C-14 expands reverse onus provisions, where the accused must demonstrate why release is justified rather than the Crown proving detention is necessary. New or expanded reverse onuses now apply to:
- 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.
- Serious violent offences where the accused has two or more prior similar convictions.
- Expansion of the prior conviction window from 5 to 10 years for certain weapon-related violence.
Courts must now consider additional factors, such as random or unprovoked violence, the number and seriousness of outstanding charges (enhancing the tertiary ground for detention), and specific conditions like weapons prohibitions for extortion and organized crime cases. The “ladder principle” is clarified not to apply in reverse onus situations, and certain prior serious offenders are restricted from acting as sureties.
For Vancouver practitioners, this means more rigorous bail plans are essential. In BC Supreme Court or Provincial Court hearings, we’ll need to present compelling evidence addressing public safety risks—perhaps through enhanced surety supervision, electronic monitoring, or treatment programs. Clients facing auto theft, home invasion, or organized crime charges (prevalent in the Lower Mainland) will face heightened scrutiny.
Sentencing Reforms: Tougher Consequences and Consecutive Terms
On the sentencing side, Bill C-14 introduces or expands aggravating factors for crimes against first responders, public transit workers, organized retail theft, and interference with essential infrastructure (e.g., copper theft). Judges must prioritize denunciation and deterrence for repeat violent auto theft and break-and-enter. Consecutive sentences are mandated or strongly considered in cases like extortion paired with arson, or multiple violent offences.
Additional measures include ending conditional sentences (house arrest) for certain serious sexual offences against minors and restoring driving prohibitions for manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death/bodily harm.
These changes align with trends in BC, where prolific offenders and retail crime have strained resources. However, they raise questions about over-incarceration, court delays, and the effectiveness of deterrence for root causes like addiction and mental health—issues defence lawyers address daily in Vancouver.
Implications for Defendants and Defence Practice in Vancouver
For those accused in BC, the practical effects are clear: bail hearings will be more adversarial and evidence-heavy, especially in reverse onus cases. Defence counsel must build stronger records early—gathering character references, risk assessments, and community support plans. In Vancouver, where courthouse backlogs persist, prolonged pre-trial detention could pressure pleas or complicate trials.
From a Charter perspective, these reforms will likely face challenges. Past SCC decisions underscore that bail must remain reasonable and not punitive. Defence lawyers will monitor for overbreadth or violations of presumption of innocence. For repeat offenders, the emphasis on public safety is understandable, but it must not erode individualized justice.
As a Vancouver criminal defence lawyer, I see opportunities too. Strong advocacy can still secure release with tailored plans, and at sentencing, mitigating factors like Gladue principles for Indigenous clients or rehabilitation efforts remain vital. These reforms underscore the need for early intervention and robust defence strategies.
Provincial implementation in BC will be key. Adequate resources for bail supervision, mental health supports, and court capacity are essential to avoid unintended consequences like overcrowded jails.
Broader Impacts on the Justice System and Public Safety
Bill C-14 reflects a policy shift toward accountability for serious crime while acknowledging that laws alone aren’t sufficient. Supporters, including BC officials and police, highlight benefits for victims and communities plagued by repeat offending. Critics, including some civil liberties groups, worry about reduced discretion and potential Charter issues.
For law students and the public, this is a prime example of how criminal law evolves in response to societal pressures. In Vancouver’s diverse context—with its challenges around organized crime, homelessness, and downtown eastside issues—balanced implementation matters.
Long-term, data collection mandated by the Act (annual bail reports) will help evaluate effectiveness. A five-year parliamentary review is also required.
Practical Takeaways for Clients and Practitioners
- Act Early: If facing charges potentially impacted by Bill C-14 (effective July 15, 2026), consult defence counsel immediately to prepare for stricter bail processes.
- Build Comprehensive Plans: Focus on risk mitigation—treatment, employment, housing—for bail and sentencing.
- Stay Informed: Reforms affect youth justice and specific offences; nuances matter.
- Advocate Holistically: While tougher laws address safety, support for prevention and rehabilitation remains crucial.
In my practice defending clients across Vancouver and BC, I remain committed to upholding rights within the evolving framework. These changes demand vigilance but also skilled, strategic representation.
This blog post is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique—contact a qualified Vancouver criminal defence lawyer for personalized guidance on your situation.
by Jason Tarnow | Jun 1, 2026 | Media, Wheels Of Justice
As a Vancouver criminal defence lawyer with years of experience navigating the British Columbia courts, I’ve seen firsthand how trial delays can make or break a case. Last Friday, May 29, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada released a significant decision in R. v. Jacques-Taylor, 2026 SCC 20, that refines the application of the Jordan framework to joint trials and particularly complex prosecutions. This ruling comes at a critical time for Canadian criminal law, especially in busy jurisdictions like Vancouver and the Lower Mainland, where multi-accused firearms, drug, and organized crime cases are common.
The Jordan Framework: A Quick Refresher
In 2016, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, established presumptive ceilings for trial delays under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: 18 months in provincial court and 30 months in superior court from the date charges are laid to the end of trial. Exceeding these ceilings presumptively violates the right to be tried within a reasonable time, often resulting in a stay of proceedings.
The framework categorizes delay into three types: defence delay, Crown delay, and discrete exceptional circumstances (like unforeseen events the Crown couldn’t reasonably avoid). Over the past decade, Jordan has led to thousands of cases being stayed, prompting ongoing debate about its impact on public safety, victim rights, and the administration of justice—particularly in complex cases involving multiple accused, voluminous disclosure, or expert evidence.
What Happened in R. v. Jacques-Taylor?
Elijah Jacques-Taylor and a co-accused faced firearms and drug-related charges. When scheduling the joint trial, counsel availability created a roughly two-month scheduling conflict. The trial ultimately exceeded the Jordan ceiling, leading to a stay at the trial level that was upheld on appeal. The Supreme Court allowed the Crown’s appeal, set aside the stay, and remitted the matter for trial.
Writing for the majority (Justice Suzanne Côté, with Chief Justice Wagner and others concurring), the Court held that delays caused by scheduling conflicts in a joint trial can constitute a discrete exceptional circumstance. Joint trials promote efficiency, consistency in verdicts, and fairness by avoiding inconsistent outcomes or one accused testifying against another in separate proceedings. The Court emphasized that the Jordan framework already provides sufficient flexibility for increasingly complex modern prosecutions without needing a wholesale overhaul.
In a companion analysis, the Court addressed “particularly complex” cases—those with massive disclosure, numerous witnesses, or novel legal issues—reaffirming that the framework can accommodate them where justified.
Implications for Practitioners in British Columbia
This decision is highly relevant for Vancouver criminal defence lawyers and those practicing across BC. The Lower Mainland sees frequent joint prosecutions in cases involving alleged gang activity, drug trafficking, and firearms offences under the Criminal Code. Defence counsel must now carefully strategize around joint trial scheduling.
Key Takeaways for the Defence Bar:
- Scheduling Matters: Defence lawyers should document efforts to secure earlier dates and consider severance applications under section 591(1) of the Criminal Code where a co-accused’s unavailability prejudices their client’s Jordan rights. However, courts will presume joint trials are in the interests of justice.
- Complexity Arguments: In multi-count indictments or cases with extensive wiretap evidence, proactively build a record showing why additional time is necessary. This ruling reinforces that legitimate complexity can justify exceeding ceilings without automatically triggering a stay.
- Charter Strategy: While the decision tilts toward flexibility for the Crown in joint matters, it does not dilute the core Jordan protections. Accused persons still benefit from the presumptive ceilings. In Vancouver Supreme Court or Provincial Court, we must remain vigilant in bringing Jordan applications with strong evidence of prejudice.
For clients, this means greater predictability in some cases but potentially longer waits in complex or multi-party matters. As defence counsel, our role is to mitigate unnecessary delay while protecting Charter rights.
Broader Context: Bail Reform, Sentencing Trends, and BC Practice
R. v. Jacques-Taylor arrives amid other recent shifts in Canadian criminal law. Parliament continues to debate Bill C-14 (bail and sentencing reforms) and Bill C-16 (victim protections and intimate partner violence measures), which could further impact how cases proceed through the system. In BC, we’re also seeing the new Criminal Rule 7 effective today, June 1, 2026, governing applications for reduction in parole ineligibility periods—another procedural update practitioners must master.
These developments reflect a balancing act: protecting speedy trial rights while ensuring serious cases—especially those involving violence or organized crime—receive full hearings. In Vancouver, where court backlogs persist despite post-pandemic recovery, this SCC guidance provides welcome clarity without undermining Jordan’s intent.
Practical Advice for Accused Persons and Lawyers
If you or a loved one faces criminal charges in Vancouver or elsewhere in BC:
- Act Early: Engage experienced counsel immediately to assess Jordan risks and push for efficient resolution or severance where appropriate.
- Document Everything: Maintain detailed records of communications with Crown and court staff regarding scheduling.
- Consider All Options: From plea negotiations to Charter challenges, a strategic defence can leverage the flexibility confirmed in Jacques-Taylor while holding the system accountable.
- Stay Informed: Follow developments in Supreme Court jurisprudence and local rules, as procedural nuances often determine outcomes.
For law students and junior lawyers, this case illustrates how the SCC evolves its own precedents to meet real-world demands without sacrificing constitutional principles.
Conclusion: Strengthening Justice Through Balanced Reform
The Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. Jacques-Taylor reinforces that the Jordan framework remains robust and adaptable. It acknowledges the practical realities of joint trials and complex litigation while upholding the fundamental right to timely justice. For Vancouver criminal defence lawyers, it serves as both a caution and an opportunity—to advocate zealously for clients in an evolving landscape.
As someone dedicated to defending the rights of the accused in British Columbia courts, I view this ruling as a positive step toward a more nuanced administration of justice. It reminds us that while efficiency matters, fairness and Charter protections must remain paramount.
This blog post is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. If you face criminal charges or have questions about your rights under Canadian criminal law, contact a qualified Vancouver criminal defence lawyer for personalized guidance.
by Jason Tarnow | Feb 24, 2022 | Crime, Media, Police
A Vancouver man suffering from long haul COVID-19 symptoms was successful in the judicial review of his 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (“IRP”) after arguing that the Adjudicator breached his right to procedural fairness in his original review to RoadSafety BC.
On February 11, 2021, Peter Ronald Gibson was issued an IRP after the police officer alleged he refused to provide a sample. Mr. Gibson made 7 attempts into the Approved Screening Device, none of which successfully yielded a suitable sample. As a result, his vehicle was impounded for 30 days, and he was prohibited from driving for 90 days.
Mr. Gibson sought a review of his IRP to RoadSafety BC, delegate of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles on the basis that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a breath sample. In Mr. Gibson’s original review, he provided evidence in the form of his Affidavit. He also provided a letter from his physician that confirmed his diagnosis – he was suffering from long term symptoms as a result of COVID-19, including shortness of breath on exertion.
The letter reads:
“His physical examination shows evidence of post-viral reactive airways with sever forced expiratory wheeze. He has been given prescriptions for Flovent and Salbutamol inhalers today. This could contribute to his difficulty performing breathalyzer test during recent traffic stop”
The Adjudicator at RoadSafety BC rejected the letter from Mr. Gibson’s physician, stating that there was no evidence that the physician was aware of the “minimum flow rate (of breath)” required to provide a sample. Mr. Gibson also provided his own Affidavit, which confirmed that he had been referred for treatment, which included CT scans and chest x-rays, among other diagnostic tests.
Keep in mind that the role of the Adjudicator is to analyze whether Mr. Gibson had a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a sample. The analysis is done through review of the Report to Superintendent and all included materials, and also through review of all materials provided by the Applicant (in this case, Mr. Gibson). The Adjudicator may also rely on the Operator’s manual for the Alco-Sensor FST (the Approved Screening Device), which includes information such as proper operating temperature of the device, screen codes, and procedural standards.
Ultimately, the Adjudicator determined that Mr. Gibson’s version of events lacked credibility, and that his physician did not provide sufficient evidence that his medical condition would have prevented him from providing a suitable sample into the Alco-Sensor FST. In doing so, they advanced their interpretation of the testing requirements within the Operator’s manual – specifically, the wording used to describe the necessary airflow required to provide a sample:
“The Alco-Sensor FST has an automatic sampling system designed to ensure that a sample of deep lung air is obtained and analyzed. In order to trigger automatic sampling the subject must blow with a minimum flow rate, must produce a minimum breath volume, and blow for a minimum duration…”
On judicial review, Supreme Court Justice Tammen took issue with the Adjudicator’s interpretation of this issue. The Judge dissected the Adjudicator’s analysis and concluded that despite quoting the appropriate resource, the manual itself provided no information to estimate the “minimum” flow rate required.
Through the Adjudicator’s analysis, Justice Tammen determined that they had relied on information (relating to the required flow rate of a sample) that was not available to the Petitioner (or his physician) at the outset of his review with RoadSafety BC. This breached the Petitioner’s right to procedural fairness.
Justice Tammen directed that the Adjudicator’s decision confirming the IRP of the Petitioner be set aside, and that the matter be remitted to RoadSafety BC for a new hearing.
This case demonstrates a significant flaw in the IRP regime – that is, a blurring of the lines between adjudication and medical expertise. While adjudicators may have specialized knowledge of certain issues due to continued exposure via their employment, the boundaries in their role must be respected and enforced.
If you have received an Immediate Roadside Prohibition, an Administrative Driving Prohibition, or have been charged with Impaired Operation of a Conveyance, contact an experienced criminal lawyer at Tarnow Criminal Law as soon as possible. Our office is located in the heart of Richmond, only 20 minutes from downtown Vancouver on the Canada Line, and within 10 minutes of Vancouver International Airport (“YVR”).
Our firm is also licensed to work in the Yukon Territory, where the 90-day review process for impaired driving is an entirely different process. If you are facing impaired driving charges in the Yukon, contact our office as soon as possible for a consultation.
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 | Sep 11, 2020 | Crime, Media, Wheels Of Justice
It has been six years since Matthew de Grood was charged with the murders of five young people at a house party in Calgary, Alberta, and four years since he was found to be Not Criminally Responsible for those offences.
It was concluded that de Grood was suffering from delusions, attributed to undiagnosed schizophrenia, when he caused the deaths of five schoolmates from a local university. He has been in a secure psychiatric facility ever since.
As we have discussed in previous posts, a finding of NCR is neither a determination of guilt, nor an acquittal. It is the beginning of alternative proceedings, which ultimately seek to determine if/when an Accused person can be released back into the community. Like all individuals found NCR, de Grood is required to appear before the Review Board to assess his progress, and to evaluate what freedoms, if any, he may be granted as a result of said progress.
Back in 2016, the Crown suggested it would be making an Application to seek a “High Risk NCR” designation for de Grood. Had this designation been imposed, his appearance before the Review Board would have been extended to take place every three years instead of annually. However – it appears that the Application was never made. This was likely due to the fact that the relevant legislation – the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act – did not go into force until July 11, 2014, nearly 3 months after the offences took place. As such, the law could not be retroactively applied to de Grood’s case.
At his recent hearing, de Grood’s counsel spoke of the progress he has made during his time at the psychiatric facility. He has been afforded the opportunity to spend the night at his parent’s home on several occasions, taking hospital transportation to and from medical appointments, and volunteering with Meals on Wheels. His counsel submits that de Grood should be granted an absolute discharge due, in part, to the progress he has made with his mental health issues, including being cooperative with taking his medication – and recognizing the devastating consequences that would come as a result of not taking it. He has also demonstrated a high level of remorse for his actions.
Defence counsel further acknowledged that de Grood’s case is extremely high profile. There are concerns regarding the public’s reaction to seeing him on public transit, and how he may face serious adversity in transitioning to a group home.
The Review Board reserved its decision, and accordingly, de Grood remains in a psychiatric facility with heavy restrictions on his freedoms.
