Focus On
NEW In-House Counsel | Insurance | Intellectual Property | Immigration | Natural Resources | Real Estate | Tax

Criminal

Latest

Thursday, November 17, 2016 @ 7:00 PM

Size won't protect firms from successful hacks

It’s not a matter of if, but when. That’s the message financial and legal experts in the increasingly important field of cybersecurity repeatedly stressed at the Association for Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists conference on Oct. 25 in Toronto. ... [read more]

Thursday, November 17, 2016 @ 7:00 PM

Criminal Law - Appeals - Grounds - Bias

Appeal by the accused from convictions of three counts of aggravated sexual assault and two counts of forcible confinement. The accused was an HIV-positive man with an undetectable viral load. He met the four male complainants at a bathhouse in Toronto. They smoked crystal meth together and returned to the accused’s home. The accused engaged in consensual sexual activity with two of the complainants and attempted sexual activity with the other two complainants, whom he admitted restraining until they asked to be released. Trial counsel requested and was granted the right to challenge prospective jurors for cause on the basis of potential bias against homosexuals. Although told that members of the jury could not discuss the case, the jury foreperson twice appeared on a radio show and discussed the case, once during trial and once after the trial had concluded. All of the participants in the radio show made derogatory comments about sexual activity between men and laughed and mocked the juror’s oath. The accused sought to appeal his convictions on the grounds that the trial judge should not have allowed the admission of evidence from his doctor and erred in not providing the jury with instructions on similar fact reasoning, discreditable conduct evidence, or a Vetrovec warning, and that trial fairness or the appearance of fairness was undermined by the conduct of the jury foreperson, who participated in radio broadcasts discussing the trial. ... [read more]

Thursday, November 17, 2016 @ 7:00 PM

Awards

Awards ... [read more]

Thursday, November 10, 2016 @ 7:00 PM

RCMP warn of pervasive threat posed by dark side of financing

Groups working on anti-money laundering efforts in Canada must begin to see the problem as one of citizen protection as well as an economic issue, according to RCMP Supt. John Shoemaker. ... [read more]

Thursday, November 10, 2016 @ 7:00 PM

Discretion over youth sentencing upheld in crowd shooting case

A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision is a reminder to lawyers in youth court cases that they cannot count on clients receiving full credit for pre-sentence custody. ... [read more]

Thursday, November 10, 2016 @ 7:00 PM

Judge's comments on perjury result in new trial

A trial judge who suggests in open court that a witness committed perjury creates a “reasonable apprehension of trial unfairness that requires a new trial,” the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled recently in overturning a sexual assault conviction. ... [read more]

Thursday, November 10, 2016 @ 7:00 PM

Sentencing - Criminal Code offences - Offences against person and reputation - Homicide - Manslaughter - Particular sanctions - Imprisonment - Probation - Sentencing considerations - Submissions - Joint submissions

Appeal from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal affirming a sentencing decision which set aside a joint submission regarding Anthony-Cook’s sentence. Anthony-Cook entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter on the basis of a joint submission as to sentence. The trial judge rejected the joint submission and imposed a longer custodial sentence than the sentence proposed by the Crown and the defence counsel. He also imposed a probation order for three years, even though the joint submission did not contemplate a period of probation. The Court had to determine whether the trial judge erred in departing from the joint submission proposed by the parties. The trial judge expressed two concerns with the joint submission. First, he noted that counsel had mistakenly overestimated by some six months the amount of credit to which Anthony-Cook was entitled for time spent in pre-sentence custody. Second, the trial judge was concerned that without a probation order, the sentence would not adequately protect the public. Applying the “fitness of sentence” test, the trial judge rejected the joint submission. While giving it careful consideration, he concluded that it did not give adequate weight to the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia unanimously dismissed Anthony-Cook’s sentence appeal. ... [read more]

Thursday, November 10, 2016 @ 7:00 PM

Criminal Law - Appeals - Grounds - Misapprehension of or failure to consider evidence - Unreasonable verdict

Appeal by Lemaigre from his conviction for assault causing bodily harm. At the time of the alleged offence, Lemaigre was serving the community portion of his sentence as a long-term offender. The long-term supervision order prohibited Lemaigre from having any contact with his former spouse. She was the complainant. She testified that she found Lemaigre at her home, where he punched her once in the face, knocking her unconscious. She had a small scar as a result. Under cross-examination, the complainant admitted she had a history of alcohol problems and that she had been drinking the day before the incident with Lemaigre. No one witnessed the assault. The daughter of Lemaigre and the complainant, and the daughter’s boyfriend, testified for the defence. The daughter stated that the complainant had come to her home drunk, looking for a place to stay. When the daughter refused her entry, the complainant fell outside the home. The daughter and her boyfriend noted that the complainant had the eye injury that the complainant attributed to Lemaigre after the fall. The daughter also started to testify about the complainant punching Lemaigre at the daughter’s home some days later, but the Crown objected to the daughter testifying in chief about the events of any day other than the day in question, April 3, 2012. She rejected the suggestion that Lemaigre may have hit the complainant the next day after the complainant got up and left. The daughter was adamant that Lemaigre was out of town on April 3, 2012. Both she and her boyfriend stated that Lemaigre always called them when he was in town. The judge noted that neither the daughter nor her boyfriend were sure what the complainant may have encountered after she left their home. He found that the daughter angry with the complainant because of her drinking, protective of Lemaigre, and generally unbelievable. He found the complainant straightforward and credible in her account of being punched by Lemaigre and suffering a black eye that constituted bodily harm. ... [read more]

Thursday, October 27, 2016 @ 8:00 PM

Informant disclosure ruling overturned

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has rejected a lower court ruling that ordered edited police documents containing intelligence from confidential informers be disclosed to defence counsel for the purpose of challenging the validity of a search warrant. ... [read more]

Thursday, October 27, 2016 @ 8:00 PM

Nova Scotia to revise flawed cyberbullying law

Nova Scotia’s minister of justice has made it clear that new cyberbullying legislation will be introduced this spring. What is much less clear — the nature, breadth and depth of that legislation. ... [read more]