Third Party Records Disclosure Applications s. 278 Criminal Code. D. Brian Newton, Q.C.
|
|
- Jeffery Williamson
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Third Party Records Disclosure Applications s. 278 Criminal Code D. Brian Newton, Q.C. Preamble Several years ago, I was approached by Victim Services of the Department of Justice in regards to providing independent legal counsel on behalf of complainants who are subjected to an application being made by accused persons under the provisions of s. 278 of the Criminal Code or under the common law provisions as set out in O Connor v. The Queen (1995), 103 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.) I have had the opportunity of participating in applications for production of third party records in approximately twenty cases. In addition to my experience in this particular regard, I have also had the opportunity of reviewing the paper that has been presented by Donald C. Murray, Q.C. and for the sake of brevity, I will try not to repeat many of the points that Mr. Murray has already alluded to. Background Information The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the issues arising in an application for production of third party records in their Judgment in R. v. O Connor supra which was rendered on December 14, Subsequent to the decision in R. v. O Connor, Parliament enacted sections through of the Criminal Code. These sections codified the two step process outlined by the majority in R. v. O Connor, together with some changes and additions, and came into force as of May 12, Since that date, these sections of the Criminal Code have been reviewed by Courts at all levels in regards to the proper interpretation to be placed on an application for production of third party records. The leading decision in this regard is the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Mills [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668, 139 C.C.C. (3d) 321. Complainant s Privacy and Equality Rights It is my position on behalf of complainants subjected to an application for production of their records that the application brought by the accused under the provisions of s. 278 of the Criminal Code requires the balancing of the rights of the accused under s. 7 and s. 11 of the Charter with the privacy rights of the complainant. The Complainant s equality rights have constitutional protection. Section 15(1) of the Charter states: 15(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. -1-
2 The Right to Equality without discrimination was discussed by Madam Justice L Heureux Dube writing for the minority in R. v. O Connor supra at paragraphs 121 through 124. She wrote in part: [121] It is a common phenomenon in this day and age for one who has been sexually victimized to seek counseling or therapy in relation to this occurrence. It therefore stands to reason that disclosure rules or practices which make mental health or medical records routinely accessible in sexual offence proceedings will have disproportionately invasive consequences for women, particularly those with disabilities, and children. In particular, in determining questions or disclosure of records of persons allegedly assaulted in institutions where they get psychiatric assistance, the Courts must take care not to create a class of vulnerable victims who have to choose between accusing their attackers and maintaining the confidentiality of their records. [122] This Court has recognized the pernicious role that past evidentiary rules in both the Criminal Code and the common law, now regarded as discriminatory, once played in our legal system: R. v. Seaboyer, supra. We must be careful not to permit such practices to reappear under the guise of extensive and unwarranted inquiries into the past histories and private lives of complainants of sexual assault. We must not allow the defence to do indirectly what it cannot do directly under s. 276 of the Criminal Code. This would close one discriminatory door only to open another. [123] As I noted in Osolin, supra at p. 500 C.C.C., p. 498 D.L.R., uninhibited disclosure of complainants private lives indulges the discriminatory suspicion that women and children s reports of sexual victimization are uniquely likely to be fabricated. Put another way, if there were an explicit requirement in the Criminal Code requiring corroboration before women or children could bring sexual assault charges, such a provision would raise serious concerns under s. 15 of the Charter. In my view, a legal system which devalues the evidence of complainants to sexual assault by de facto presuming their uncreditworthiness would raise similar concerns. It would not reflect, far less promote, a society in which all are secure in the knowledge that they are recognized at law as human beings equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration (Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia (1989), 56 D.L.R. (4 th ) at p. 15 ([1898] 1 S.C.R. 143, 25 C.C.E.L. 255). [124] Routine insistence on the exposure of complainants personal backgrounds has the potential to reflect a built-in bias in the criminal justice system against those most vulnerable to repeat victimization. Such requests, in essence, rest on the assumption that the personal and psychological backgrounds and profiles of complainants of sexual assault are relevant as to whether or not the complainant consented to the sexual contact, or whether the accused honestly believed that she consented. Although the defence must be free to demonstrate, without resort to stereotypical lines of reasoning, that such information is actually relevant to a live issue at trial, it would mark the triumph of stereotype over logic if courts and lawyers were simply to -2-
3 assume such relevance to exist, without requiring any evidence to this effect whatsoever. Bill C-46, now sections of the Criminal Code of Canada, also addresses the issue of equality in its preamble. It states in part: WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada continues to be greatly concerned about the incidence of sexual violence and abuse in Canadian society and, in particular the prevalence of sexual violence against women and children; WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada recognizes that violence has a particularly disadvantageous impact on the equal participation of women and children in society and on the rights of women and children to security of the person, privacy and equal benefit of the law as guaranteed by sections 7, 8, 15 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada intends to promote and help to insure the full protection of the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all, including those who are accused of, and those who are or may be victims of, sexual violence or abuse; The right to privacy of the Complainant also has constitutional protection. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. O Connor supra discussed the right to privacy of the complainant and the history of judicial and other protection for this right. Writing for the minority, Madam Justice L Heureux Dube stated in paragraph 110, 118 and 119: [110] This Court has on many occasions recognized the great value of privacy in our society. It has expressed sympathy for the proposition that s. 7 of the Charter includes a right to privacy: R. v. Beare, supra, at p. 77 C.C.C., pp D.L.R.; B..) v. Children s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto (1995), 122 D.L.R. (4 th ) 1 at p. 39, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315, 26 C.R.R. (2d) 202, per La Forest J. On numerous other occasions, it has spoken of privacy in terms of s. 8 of the Charter: see, e.g., Hunter v. Southam Inc. (1984), 14 C.C.C. (3d) 97, 11 D.L.R. (4 th ) 641, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; R. v. Pohorestky (1987), 33 C.C.C. (3d) 398, 99 D.L.R. (4 th ) 669, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 945; R. v. Dyment (1988), 45 C.C.C. (3d) 244, 55 D.L.R. (4 th ) 503, [1988] 2 S.C.R On still other occasions, it has underlined the importance of privacy in the common law: McInerney v. MacDonald (1992), 93 D.L.R. (4 th ) 415 at pp , [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138, 12 C.C.L.T. (2d) 225; Hill v. Church of Scienctology of Toronto (1995), 126 D.L.R. (4 th ) 129, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130, 25 C.C.L.T. (2d) 89. [118] In R. v. Plant (1993), 84 C.C.C. (3d) 203, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281, 24 C.R. (4 th ) 47, albeit in the context of a discussion of s. 8 of the Charter, the majority of this -3-
4 Court identified one context in which the right to privacy would generally arise in respect of documents and records (at p. 213); In fostering the underlying values of dignity, integrity and autonomy, it is fitting that s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state. This would include information which tends to reveal intimate details of the lifestyle of personal choice of the individual. (Emphasis added) Although I prefer not to decide today whether this definition is exhaustive of the right to privacy in respect of all manners of documents and records, I am satisfied that the nature of the private records which are the subjectmatter of this appeal properly brings them within that rubric. Such items may consequently be viewed as disclosing a reasonable expectation of privacy which is worthy of protection under s. 7 of the Charter. [119] The essence of privacy, however, is that once invaded, it can seldom be regained. For this reason, it is all the more important for reasonable expectations of privacy to be protected at the point of disclosure. As La Forest J. observed in Dyment, supra, at p. 256 C.C.C., p. 515 D.L.R.:...if the privacy of the individual is to be protected, we cannot afford to wait to vindicate it only after it has been violated. This is inherent in the notion of being secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Invasions of privacy must be prevented, and where privacy is outweighed by other societal claims, there must be clear rules setting forth the conditions in which it can be violated. The majority of the Court in the O Connor decision agreed that therapeutic records attract a stronger privacy interest than many other forms of information. The Decision in R. v. O Connor The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the issues arising in an application for production of third party records in their judgment in R. v. O Connor which was rendered December 14, The majority of the Court held: In our opinion, the balancing approach we established in Stinchcombe can apply with equal force in the contest of production; where information sought is in the hands of a third party. Of course, the balancing process must be modified to fit the contest in which it is applied. In cases involving production, for example, we -4-
5 are concerned with the competing claims of a constitutional right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to full answer and defence on the other. The majority of the Court in R. v. O Connor endorsed a two stage procedure for the production of records. In the first stage the accused must establish likely relevance. Sopinka J. writing for the majority at paragraph 19 writes When the defence seeks information in the hands of a third party (as compared to the state), the following considerations operate so as to require a shifting of the onus and a higher threshold of relevance: (1) the information is not part of the state s case to meet nor has the state been granted access to the information in preparing its case, and; (2) third parties have no obligation to assist the defence. If the accused is able to establish likely relevance, the judge may order production of the records for review by the court. The Court held that the second stage in the procedure required the judge to balance the accused s right to full answer and defence with privacy rights of the complainant or witness. The Court enumerated a number of factors to be considered in balancing the competing rights. Statutory Provisions Subsequent to the O Connor decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, Parliament enacted sections of the Criminal Code. These sections codified the two step process outlined by the majority in the O Connor decision with some changes and additions and were in force as of May 12, Sections of the Criminal Code have been upheld as constitutional in a judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia dated September 3, MacDonald A.C.J. stated: Having considered this legislation, including its preamble, both on its own and in the context of majority decision in O Connor, I have concluded that the portions of this bill, relative to the application at bar, are constitutional. R. v. Regan September 3, 1998 C.R The sections of the Criminal Code provide that the accused must make application in writing to the trial judge for production of the sought after records (Section 278.3(3)). -5-
6 Section 278.3(4) enumerates 10 grounds which are insufficient on their own to establish that the record sought is likely relevant to an issue at trial or to the competence of a witness to testify. The judge may after a hearing in camera on the issue of likely relevance, order production of the records for review by the judge. To do so the judge must be satisfied that the application was made in accordance with the provisions of section 278.3(2) - (6) and that the accused has established that the record is likely relevant to an issue at trial or to the competence of the witness to testify. Section (1) requires the accused at the stage of production to a judge to demonstrate not only that the information is likely relevant but in addition that the production of the record is necessary in the interest of justice. Section (2) provides that the judge in determining whether to order the production of the record for review shall consider the salutary and deleterious effects on the accused s right to make full answer and defence and the right to privacy and equality of the complainant or witness. Factors to consider are enumerated at subsection (2)(a) -(h). The judge may after review of the document, order that the records are likely relevant and should be produced to the accused. Section 278(1) states that in determining whether to produce records to the accused, the court shall take into account the same factors as considered for production to the judge at the first step of the procedure (278.7 (2) Criminal Code). When ordering production of records to the accused the court may impose conditions on the production (Section 278.7(3)). Like the O Connor decision, the Criminal Code provisions provide that the application be dealt with in a two step process; that the threshold at the first step of the process is likely relevance of the records to an issue at trial or the competence of a witness to testify; and that the onus is on the accused to establish likely relevance. Onus on the Accused The onus on the accused in bringing an application is to establish the likely relevance of the records sought. The burden on the accused was noted by Sopinka J. in O Connor supra to be a significant one. He wrote at paragraph 24: While we agree that likely relevance is the appropriate threshold for the first stage of the two - step procedure, we wish to emphasize that while it is a significant burden, it should not be interpreted as an onerous burden upon the accused. The onus on the accused under the Criminal Code sections is a higher onus than described in the O Connor decision. -6-
7 Meaning of Likely Relevance The majority of the Court in O Connor considered the meaning of likely relevance. It was stated: The Decision in R. v. Mills [22] In the disclosure contest, the meaning of relevance is expressed in terms of whether the information may be useful to the defence: see Egger, supra, at p. 204 C.C.C., p. 689 D.L.R., and Chaplin, supra, at p In the context of production, the test of relevance should be higher; the presiding judge must be satisfied that there is a reasonable possibility that the information is logically probative to an issue at trial or the competence of a witness to testify. When we speak of relevance to an issue at trial, we are referring not only to evidence that may be probative to the material issues in the case (i.e., the unfolding of events) but also to evidence relating to the credibility of witnesses and to the reliability of other evidence in the case: see R. v. R. (L.) (1995), 100 C.C.C. (3d) 329 at p. 339, 127 D.L.R. (4 th ) 170 at p. 180, 39 C.R. (4 th ) 390 (Ont. C.A.) Subsequent to the decision in R. v. O Connor and the enactment of Sections of the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court of Canada had an opportunity of considering the legislative framework in R. v. Mills [1999], 3 S.C.R. 668, 139 C.C.C. (3d) 321. In discussing the test which must be applied to determine whether or not an applicant has established that the record is likely relevant to an issue at trial or the competence of a witness to testify Justices McLachlin and Iacobucci stated at paragraph 118: It does not entirely prevent an accused from relying on the factors listed, but simply prevents reliance on bare assertions of the listed matters, where there is no other evidence and they stand on their own. The purpose and wording of s do not prevent an accused from relying on the assertions set out in s (4) where there is an evidentiary or informational foundation to suggest that they may be related to likely relevance. (An exception is recent complaint which has been abolished by the jurisprudence and cannot be relied on in any event, quite apart from the section.) The section requires only that the accused be able to point to case specific evidence or information to show that the record in issue is likely relevant to an issue at trial or the competence of a witness to testify. This test has been applied by various courts across the country. In R. v. Batte (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 321, 145 C.C.C. (3d) 449 the Ontario Court of Appeal stated at paragraph 75: -7-
8 The determination of likely relevance under the common law scheme requires the same approach. The mere assertion that a record is relevant to credibility is not enough. An accused must point to some case specific evidence or information to justify that assertion. In my view, an accused must be able to point to something in the record adduced on the motion that suggests that the records contain information which is not already available to the defence or has potential impeachment value. The principles enunciated in both Mills, supra and Batte, supra were applied in R. V. M.(D.) (2000), 37 C.R. (5 th ) 80 (Ont. S.C.J.). Here Justice Hill stated at paragraph 37: The initial stage, whether production should be ordered to the Court for review, calls for the trial judge to apply a likely relevant standard. While the burden is not to be overly onerous, at the same time, the requirement is not to be reduced to an altogether standardless process. Relevance is contextual, a case specific application of logic and experience to determine whether the evidence assists in proving a fact in issue. Whether or not the evidence in question has some tendency to make the proposition for which it is advanced more likely than were the evidence absent requires the Court to assess an evidentiary or informational foundation grounded in the circumstances of the case at hand: R. v. Mills (1999), 139 C.C.C. (3d) 321 (S.C.C.) at 380; R. V. Batte (2000) 34 C.R. (5 th ) 197 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 74" The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has also considered this issue in R. v. L. (D.W.) 156 C.C.C. (3d) 152. In applying the test for production of the record to the trial judge and finding that it was not met in this case the Court stated at paragraphs 32-34: I agree with the Crown s submission in this case that the Respondent s argument that the complainant s diaries might contain material relevant to the complainant s animus against him is highly speculative and falls far short of establishing likely relevance to an issue at this trial or to the competence of a witness to testify. Further s (2) of the Code requires the trial judge to consider the extent to which the diaries of the complainant are necessary for the accused to make a full answer and defence. As I have indicated, the Respondent made application to have the diaries produced because of that which they might show with respect to the complainant s animus against him. In view of the evidence of that animus which already exists - in the form of the writings on the cell wall - it is difficult to imagine how these diaries, even if they did, in fact, contain evidence of the complainant s animus against the Respondent are necessary in order for the Respondent to make full answer and defence. The trial judge did not consider, in his decision, the extent to which the diaries were necessary for that defence. -8-
9 Conclusion Likewise, the trial judge failed to consider, as he is required to do under s (2), the probative value of the diaries. Even if the diaries contained reference to the complainant s ill will against the Respondent, the probative value of such evidence would be marginal considering the other evidence already available to the Respondent. The difficulty that the Courts must face on a regular basis is to properly balance the accused s ability to access private records of the complainant that may be useful to the accused in asserting his or her defence together with the right of a complainant to have their private records kept confidential particularly from the very person who may have been responsible for the complainant undergoing treatment in the first instance. It is somewhat of a unique situation where a complainant undergoes therapeutic treatment as a result of an allegation that he or she were sexually assaulted and the accused person who is the subject matter of the complaint has an ability to access those very private records. I have had a number of occasions where it was my understanding that if the accused person gained access to the complainant s private records that the complainant would rather not proceed with the criminal charges. In such a scenario it is regrettable that the sections of the Criminal Code that were set up to protect the privacy of a complainant may not afford that protection to the complainant in each and every case. It has been my experience that commesurate with the decision in R. v. O Connor and the enactment of s. 278 of the Criminal Code that the Courts seemed to be wary of producing the private records of the complainant even at the first stage. More recently, however, the Courts have been somewhat more amenable to having the records of the complainant produced at least at the first stage on the basis that there can be little potential prejudice to the personal dignity and right to privacy of the complainant at the first stage as opposed to the second stage when all or a portion of the complainant s records could be made available to the accused. It is my position when representing complainants at a hearing pursuant to Section 278 of the Criminal Code that the privacy rights of the complainant are just as important at the first stage of the hearing as they are at the second stage of the hearing. While admittedly the onus on the accused at the first hearing is not an onerous one, it still is a significant one and my concern, of course, is that records may be routinely produced at the first stage for review by the Judge without the Judge properly taking into consideration, the privacy interests on behalf of the complainant. In this regard as well, I also have some concerns in regards to the applicable tests to be applied at the first hearing. It is clear that the burden rests with the accused and it would be my position that the proper test to be applied at such a hearing would be the civil test, namely, on a balance of probabilities. However, Mr. Murray has quite rightly referred to the decision in R. v. Mills, supra where the Supreme Court of Canada stated: -9-
10 Where there is a danger that the accused s right to make full answer and defence will be violated, the Trial Judge should err on the side of production to the Court. It may be logical to argue that such a comment by the Supreme Court of Canada may even lessen the burden on the accused person to show on a balance of probabilities that the records should be produced at either the first or second hearing. In regards to Section (1) of the Criminal Code, a Judge must be satisfied that the accused has established that the record is likely relevant to an issue at trial or to the competence of a witness to testify and the production of the record is necessary in the interest of justice. It is my position that there may be cases where an accused could establish that the record is likely relevant to an issue at trial or to the competence of a witness to testify but to fail to establish that the production of the records is necessary in the interest of justice. It is also important to note that the accused must satisfy the provisions of Section (1)(b) and (c). In a number of cases that I have been involved in, the accused person in his or her application does nothing more than to make assertions according to the provisions of Section 278.3(4) that are not sufficient on their own to establish that the record is likely relevant to an issue at trial or to the competence of a witness to testify. In cases such as these, I will usually assert that the accused is engaging in nothing more than a fishing expedition and is therefore not entitled to the production of any or all of the records sought. Finally, in regards to production of the records, I would refer you to Section 278.7(1) of the Criminal Code and simply confirm that the Judge still has a discretion as to whether or not a record or part of a record will be produced to the accused even if the trial Judge is satisfied that the accused has complied with the provisions of Section 278.5(1) of the Criminal Code. In addition, I take the position on behalf of complainants that if the records or a portion of the records are produced that there should be as many restrictions placed on them as possible in order to protect the privacy rights of the complainant. For example, I usually insist that the record to be disclosed is to be disclosed only to the accused and their counsel or any expert that may be retained by counsel for the accused with the express provision that the contents of the records are not to be disclosed to any third party. I also generally ask that no additional copies of the records be made and that once the accused s trial has been concluded that the original and all copies of the records be returned to the complainant or to the Court for destruction. I will conclude my remarks by saying that I believe that it is logical to assume that a complainant who may have been victimized may seek the need of therapeutic counseling to deal with mental and physical issues that may occur as a result of the alleged violation. It may be somewhat inconsistent to argue that the person potentially responsible for placing the complainant in such a position should have access to those very private records which would not have existed were it not for the alleged conduct of the accused. On the other hand, having some experience as a lawyer for accused persons, I also would conclude that it is the right of any accused person to be able to provide a full and complete defence to the allegations being asserted against them and if -10-
11 they cannot do so without access to the complainant s private records then a disservice may be done to them. It is within this delicate balancing between the complainant s right to privacy and the accused s right to provide a full defence that our Courts must properly interpret the provisions of Section 278 of the Criminal Code on a regular basis. -11-
110 O.R. (3d) ONSC Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Pattillo J. May 23, 2012
Page 1 SA Capital Corp. v. Brooks, as Executor of the Estate of Mander, Deceased, et al. Sbaraglia v. RSM Richter Inc. et al. [Indexed as: SA Capital Corp. v. Mander Estate] 110 O.R. (3d) 765 2012 ONSC
More informationBill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION
Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION November 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) PREFACE...
More informationACCESS TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE Divergent Trends in the Legal Profession DISCLOSURE REVISITED
ACCESS TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE Divergent Trends in the Legal Profession November 29, 2002 DISCLOSURE REVISITED Faculty: Anne Malick, Q.C. Speaking Notes Access to Solicitor/Client Privilegd Information-McClure
More informationL.C. (The Complainant) and the Attorney General for Alberta
R. v. Mills, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668 L.C. (The Complainant) and the Attorney General for Alberta Appellants v. Brian Joseph Mills Respondent and The Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General for Ontario,
More informationR. v. H. (S.) Defences Automatism Insane and non-insane
88 [Indexed as: R. v. H. (S.)] Her Majesty the Queen, Appellant and S.H., Respondent Ontario Court of Appeal Docket: CA C56874 2014 ONCA 303 Robert J. Sharpe, David Watt, M.L. Benotto JJ.A. Heard: January
More informationR v. Hart: A Welcome New Emphasis on Reliability and Admissibility David M. Tanovich *
298 CRIMINAL REPORTS 12 C.R. (7th) R v. Hart: A Welcome New Emphasis on Reliability and Admissibility David M. Tanovich * The purpose of the law of evidence is to promote the search for truth in a fair
More informationThe Impact of the Charter on the Law of Sexual Assault: Plus Ça Change, Plus C est La Même Chose
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 57 (2012) Article 15 The Impact of the Charter on the Law of Sexual Assault: Plus Ça Change, Plus C est La Même Chose
More informationA View From the Bench Administrative Law
A View From the Bench Administrative Law Justice David Farrar Nova Scotia Court of Appeal With the Assistance of James Charlton, Law Clerk Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Court of Appeal for Ontario: Mavi
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Nuttall, 2016 BCSC 73 Regina v. John Stuart Nuttall and Amanda Marie Korody Date: 20160111 Docket: 26392 Registry: Vancouver Restriction on Publication:
More informationCHAPTER 4 NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990 AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 INTRODUCTION
110 CHAPTER 4 NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990 AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 Background INTRODUCTION The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Bill of Rights Act) affirms a range of civil and political rights.
More informationEquality, Fairness and Relevance: Disclosure of Therapists' Records in Sexual Assault Trials
Equality, Fairness and Relevance: Disclosure of Therapists' Records in Sexual Assault Trials Marilyn T. MacCRIMMON & Christine BOYLE 1 INTRODUCTION... 2 I. MUTUALLY SUPPORTIVE CONCEPTS: THE RIGHT TO A
More informationIndexed as: Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General)
Page 1 Indexed as: Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General) IN THE MATTER OF sections 2(b) and 52(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982; AND
More informationParliamentary Research Branch HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION AND THE CHARTER: A COMPARATIVE GUIDE. Nancy Holmes Law and Government Division
Mini-Review MR-102E HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION AND THE CHARTER: A COMPARATIVE GUIDE Nancy Holmes Law and Government Division 13 October 1992 Revised 18 September 1997 Library of Parliament Bibliothèque du
More informationParliamentary Research Branch THE RODRIGUEZ CASE: A REVIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION ON ASSISTED SUICIDE
Background Paper BP-349E THE RODRIGUEZ CASE: A REVIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION ON ASSISTED SUICIDE Margaret Smith Law and Government Division October 1993 Library of Parliament Bibliothèque
More informationA. THE RENEWED APPLICATION UNDER SS. 7 AND 11(D)
Ontario Supreme Court R. v. Court, Date: 1997-06-30 Regina and Court and Monaghan Ontario Court (General Division), Glithero J. June 30, 1997 Jack L. Pinkofsky, for applicant, Graham Rodney Court. James
More informationAlberta s Health Information Act and the Charter: A Discussion Paper
Alberta s Health Information Act and the Charter: A Discussion Paper Prepared for: Canadian Mental Health Association (Alberta Division) Alberta Medical Association B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy
More informationPUBLICATION BANS FIRST ISSUED: NOVEMBER 23, 2015 EDITED / DISTRIBUTED: NOVEMBER 23, 2015
DOCUMENT TITLE: PUBLICATION BANS NATURE OF DOCUMENT: PRACTICE NOTE FIRST ISSUED: NOVEMBER 23, 2015 LAST SUBSTANTIVE REVISION: EDITED / DISTRIBUTED: NOVEMBER 23, 2015 NOTE: THIS POICY DOCUMENT IS TO BE
More informationONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE No.: Toronto Region, Metro North Court DATE: 2009 02 24 Citation: R. v. Gubins, 2009 ONCJ 80 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AND MELISSA GUBINS Before Justice Leslie
More informationMEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL From: Lawrence Rubin Date: March 23, 2018 Subject: Professional Standards (Criminal) Committee Standard No. 3: Defence Obligations Regarding Disclosure FOR: APPROVAL INTRODUCTION
More informationHEARD: Before the Honourable Justice A. David MacAdam, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on May 25 & June 15, 2000
Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission) v. Sam's Place et al. Date: [20000803] Docket: [SH No. 163186] 1999 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA BETWEEN: THE NOVA SCOTIA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION APPLICANT
More informationResearch ranc. i1i~ EQUALITY RIGHTS: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION. Philip Rosen Law and Government Division. 22 February 1989
Mini-Review MR-29E EQUALITY RIGHTS: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION Philip Rosen Law and Government Division 22 February 1989 A i1i~ ~10000 ~i;~ I Bibliothèque du Parlement Research ranc The Research
More informationPeter M. Jacobsen, for Thomson Newspaper (The Globe and Mail), the Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. and Toronto Sun Publishing Corporation.
Ontario Supreme Court R. v. Bernardo Date: 1995-02-10 R. and Paul Kenneth Bernardo Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) LeSage A.C.J.O.C. Judgment February 10, 1995. Raymond J. Houlahan, Q.C., for
More informationWilliam B. Stinchcombe
R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326 William B. Stinchcombe Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Stinchcombe File No.: 21904. 1991: May 2; 1991: November 7. Present: La Forest,
More informationDISCLOSURE: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS IN PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE CASES. Andrew J. Heal
DISCLOSURE: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS IN PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE CASES Andrew J. Heal ANDREW J. HEAL, PARTNER HEAL & Co. LLP - 2 - DISCLOSURE: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROSECUTION
More informationSubmission to the Honourable Justice Michael Tulloch, Independent Reviewer Independent Police Oversight Review November 30, 2016
Submission to the Honourable Justice Michael Tulloch, Independent Reviewer Independent Police Oversight Review November 30, 2016 By Jane Stewart and Emily Chan 1 Justice for Children and Youth Introduction
More informationNEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
November 22, 2005 2005-007 NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER REPORT 2005-007 Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat Summary: The Applicant applied under the Access
More informationRE: The Board s refusal to allow public access to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Hearings
Direct Line: 604-630-9928 Email: Laura@bccla.org BY EMAIL January 20, 2016 Peter Watson, Chair National Energy Board 517 Tenth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2R 0A8 RE: The Board s refusal to allow public
More informationONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN: COURT FILE No.: District Municipality of Muskoka #07-354 Citation: R. v. Andrews, 2008 ONCJ 599 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AND DANNY ANDREWS Before Justice Wm. G. Beatty Heard
More informationCHARTER AND CONTEXT: THE FACTS FOR WHICH WE NEED EVIDENCE, AND THE MYSTERIOUS OTHER ONES
CHARTER AND CONTEXT: THE FACTS FOR WHICH WE NEED EVIDENCE, AND THE MYSTERIOUS OTHER ONES Danielle Pinard * I. INTRODUCTION The constitutional (and other) cases the Supreme Court of Canada handed down during
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: R v JMS, 2018 MBCA 117 Date: 20181102 Docket: AR17-30-08983 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice Marc M. Monnin Madam Justice Diana M. Cameron Madam Justice Karen I. Simonsen
More informationBill C-337 Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act
Bill C-337 Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION April 2017 500-865 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5S8 tel/tél : 613.237.2925
More informationALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F June 30, 2016 CALGARY POLICE SERVICE. Case File Number F7689
ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F2016-24 June 30, 2016 CALGARY POLICE SERVICE Case File Number F7689 Office URL: www.oipc.ab.ca Summary: Pursuant to the Freedom of Information
More informationALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F November 26, 2015 ALBERTA JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL
ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F2015-34 November 26, 2015 ALBERTA JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL Case File Number F6898 Office URL: www.oipc.ab.ca Summary: The Applicant
More informationPresent: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. Criminal law -- Sexual assault -- Accused grabbing
R. v. V. (K.B.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 857 K.B.V. Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. V. (K.B.) File No.: 22944. 1993: June 16; 1993: July 15. Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé,
More informationTake the example of a witness who gives identification evidence. French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ stated at [50]:
Implications of IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14 Stephen Odgers The High Court has determined (by a 4:3 majority) that a trial judge, in assessing the probative value of evidence for the purposes of a number
More informationSeptember 1, 2015 Le 1 er septembre 2015 DISCLOSURE
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL CABINET DU PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS OPERATIONAL MANUAL MANUEL DES OPÉRATIONS DE POURSUITES PUBLIQUES TYPE OF DOCUMENT TYPE DE DOCUMENT : Policy Politique CHAPTER
More informationALBERTA INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER May 3, 2000 ALBERTA CHILDREN S SERVICES. Review Number 1713
ALBERTA INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER 2000-006 May 3, 2000 ALBERTA CHILDREN S SERVICES Review Number 1713 I. BACKGROUND [para. 1.] On August 12, 1999, the Applicant applied under the Freedom
More informationR. v Ontario Inc., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 575, 2001 SCC 81. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario
R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 575, 2001 SCC 81 Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario Appellant v. 974649 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Dunedin Construction (1992) and Bob Hoy Respondents and
More informationDRUNKENNESS AS A DEFENCE TO MURDER
Page 1 DRUNKENNESS AS A DEFENCE TO MURDER Criminal Law Conference 2005 Halifax, Nova Scotia Prepared by: Joel E. Pink, Q.C. Joel E. Pink, Q.C. & Associates 1583 Hollis Street, Ste 300 Halifax, NS B3J 2P8
More informationALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F January 12, 2017 ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES. Case File Number F8441
ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F2017-01 January 12, 2017 ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES Case File Number F8441 Office URL: www.oipc.ab.ca Summary: Pursuant to the Freedom of
More informationCases That Have Changed Society
Cases That Have Changed Society Many cases are started by individuals or groups, to respond to a particular event or to change a situation. The outcomes of these cases will often lead to changes in certain
More informationCase Summary Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General)
Case Summary Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General) Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General) [1989] 2 S.C.R 1326 decided: December 21, 1989 FACTS The Edmonton Journal (Journal) sought a declaration
More informationALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F December 15, 2011 CALGARY POLICE SERVICE. Case File Number F5425
ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F2011-019 December 15, 2011 CALGARY POLICE SERVICE Case File Number F5425 Office URL: www.oipc.ab.ca Summary: The Complainant made a complaint
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1945/10
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1945/10 BEFORE: HEARING: J. P. Moore : Vice-Chair B. Davis : Member Representative of Employers A. Grande : Member Representative of Workers
More informationFACTUM OF THE APPELLANT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) BETWEEN Dylan Jacob Appellant and Attorney General of Canada Respondent FACTUM OF THE APPELLANT TEAM #8 TABLE
More informationOrder F08-15 COLLEGE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator. September 4, 2008
Order F08-15 COLLEGE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator September 4, 2008 Quicklaw Cite: [2008] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 27 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/orderf08-15.pdf
More informationDeal or no Deal The Antitrust Plea Agreement that Came and Went in R. v. Couche-Tard Inc.
Deal or no Deal The Antitrust Plea Agreement that Came and Went in R. v. Couche-Tard Inc. Huy Do Partner Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP & Antonio Di Domenico Partner Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP 1 OVERVIEW
More informationSubmissions on Bill C-51: An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act
189 Queen Street East, Suite 1 Toronto, ON M5A 2S1 Tel: (416) 214-9875 Fax: (416) 968-6818 www.criminallawyers.ca Anthony@criminallawyers.ca Submissions on Bill C-51: An Act to amend the Criminal Code
More informationThe Non-Discrimination Standards for Government and the Public Sector. Guidelines on how to apply the standards and who is covered
The Non-Discrimination Standards for Government and the Public Sector Guidelines on how to apply the standards and who is covered March 2002 Table Of Contents INTRODUCTION... 4 WHAT IS THE AIM OF THESE
More informationREVIEW REPORT FI December 29, 2015 Department of Finance
Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Nova Scotia Report of the Commissioner (Review Officer) Catherine Tully REVIEW REPORT FI-13-28 December 29, 2015 Department of Finance Summary: The
More informationONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE No.: Toronto Region, Provincial Offences Certificate of Offence # 73657325 Citation: R. v. Rowan, 2004 ONCJ 153 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AND GRANT W. ROWAN Defendant/Applicant
More informationSubmission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Bill C-75
Submission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Bill C-75 September 1, 2018 Introduction The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) is the national association of evangelical Christians
More informationThe McLachlin Court in Criminal Law: A Principled and Pragmatic Court. By Justice Shaun Nakatsuru June 19, 2009 Ottawa
The McLachlin Court in Criminal Law: A Principled and Pragmatic Court By Justice Shaun Nakatsuru June 19, 2009 Ottawa INTRODUCTION Over the last decade, in criminal law, the McLachlin Court has offered
More informationAhani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 72, 2002
Ahani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 72, 2002 SCC 2 Mansour Ahani Appellant v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Attorney General of Canada Respondents
More informationThe Supreme Court of Canada and Hate Publications: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott
The Supreme Court of Canada and Hate Publications: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott Tom Irvine Ministry of Justice, Constitutional Law Branch Human Rights Code Amendments May 5, 2014 Saskatoon
More informationTestimonial Support for Vulnerable Adults (Bill C-2): Case Law Review ( )
Testimonial Support for Vulnerable Adults (Bill C-2): Case Law Review (2009-2012) Prepared by Mary T. Ainslie, Q.C. for Research and Statistics Division Department of Justice Canada 2013 The views expressed
More informationADDRESSING CONFLICTING HUMAN RIGHTS: SOME RECENT CASE LAW
ADDRESSING CONFLICTING HUMAN RIGHTS: SOME RECENT CASE LAW Raj Anand Partner WeirFoulds LLP 416-947-5091 ranand@weirfoulds.com - and - S. Priya Morley Associate WeirFoulds LLP 416-619-6294 pmorley@weirfoulds.com
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180831 Docket: CR 14-15-00636 (Thompson Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Clemons Cited as: 2018 MBQB 144 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA IN THE MATTER OF: AND IN THE MATTER OF: The Criminal Code of
More informationMandat de perquisition Ordonnance de scellé Demande de révision en vertu de 487.3(4) C.cr. Révision effectuée ex parte et in camera COURT OF QUEBEC
World Tamil Movement c. Canada (Attorney General) 2007 QCCQ 7254 Mandat de perquisition Ordonnance de scellé Demande de révision en vertu de 487.3(4) C.cr. Révision effectuée ex parte et in camera CANADA
More informationApril 10, Promoting Unbiased Policing in B.C. West Coast LEAF s Written Submissions Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General
April 10, 2018 Promoting Unbiased Policing in B.C. West Coast LEAF s Written Submissions Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund (West Coast LEAF) is
More informationOrder F09-24 MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL. Jay Fedorak, Adjudicator. November 19, 2009
Order F09-24 MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL Jay Fedorak, Adjudicator November 19, 2009 Quicklaw Cite: [2009] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 30 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/2009/orderf09-24.pdf
More informationSection 7 of the Charter and the Common Law Rules of Evidence
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 40 (2008) Article 15 Section 7 of the Charter and the Common Law Rules of Evidence Hamish Stewart Follow this and additional
More informationThe Constitutional Validity of Bill S-201. Presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
The Constitutional Validity of Bill S-201 Presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Professor Bruce Ryder Osgoode Hall Law School, York University 22 November 2016 I am pleased
More informationOrder F Ministry of Justice. Hamish Flanagan Adjudicator. March 18, 2015
Order F15-12 Ministry of Justice Hamish Flanagan Adjudicator March 18, 2015 CanLII Cite: 2015 BCIPC 12 Quicklaw Cite: [2015] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 12 Summary: The applicant requested records from the Ministry
More information2. The inspector was attempting to ascertain whether the premises contained a suite which was not in compliance with the zoning by-law.
Court of Appeal for British Columbia R. v. Bichel Date: 19860620 The judgment of the court was delivered by r. MACFARLANE J.A.: The appellant submits that a zoning by-law is inconsistent with s. 8 of the
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN CITATION: Abou-Elmaati v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 ONCA 95 DATE: 20110207 DOCKET: C52120 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Sharpe, Watt and Karakatsanis JJ.A. Ahmad Abou-Elmaati, Badr Abou-Elmaati,
More informationCanadian Civil Liberties Association Submission to Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Service
Sukanya Pillay, Executive Director and General Counsel Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, Director, Equality Program 31 August 2015 Canadian Civil Liberties Association Submission to Ministry of Community Safety and
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 991 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 34/09 DATE: 20100326 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL
More informationOrder F12-12 MINISTRY OF JUSTICE. Catherine Boies Parker, Adjudicator. August 23, 2012
Order F12-12 MINISTRY OF JUSTICE Catherine Boies Parker, Adjudicator August 23, 2012 Quicklaw Cite: [2012] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 17 CanLII Cite: 2012 BCIPC No. 17 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/2012/orderf12-12.pdf
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Brown, 2016 NSPC 63. Her Majesty. v. Michael Anthony Brown. The Honourable Judge Paul Scovil
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Brown, 2016 NSPC 63 Date: 2016-11-04 Docket: 2802941, 2802942 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty v. Michael Anthony Brown Judge: Heard: The Honourable
More informationTHE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9. and a hearing concerning GEORGE COUTLEE RESPONDENT
2018 LSBC 33 Decision issued: November 16, 2018 Citation issued: July 13, 2017 THE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9 and a hearing concerning GEORGE
More informationMcNeil Disclosure Packages
TRANSIT POLICE MCNEIL DISCLOSURE PACKAGES Effective Date: Interim Policy February 18, 2010 Revised Date: January 31, 2014 Reviewed Date: Review Frequency: As Required Office of Primary Responsibility:
More informationCRIMINAL LAW PROFESSIONAL STANDARD #2
CRIMINAL LAW PROFESSIONAL STANDARD #2 NAME OF STANDARD A GUILTY PLEA Brief Description of Standard: A standard on the steps to be taken by counsel before entering a guilty plea on behalf of a client. Committee
More informationWomen and the Equality Guarantee of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: A Recap and Critique
Women and the Equality Guarantee of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: A Recap and Critique Margot Young Associate Professor Faculty of Law University of British Columbia Canada In 1982 Canada
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Against. Gerard Joseph MacDonald
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: R v. MacDonald 2007 PESCTD 29 Date: 20070820 Docket: S1 GC-556 Registry: Charlottetown Between Her Majesty the Queen Against
More informationThere is no present only the immediate future and the recent past
JAILHOUSE INFORMANTS There is no present only the immediate future and the recent past Introduction At the Sophonow Inquiry 1 Commissioner Cory stated: -George Carlin (1937 - ) Jailhouse informants comprise
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Court File No. A-145-12 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA APPELLANT - and- CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, FIRST NATIONS CHILD AND FAMILY CARING SOCIETY, ASSEMBLY OF FIRST
More informationConstitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue
Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue David Stratas Introduction After much controversy, 1 the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that tribunals that have
More informationTENANTS HUMAN RIGHTS GUIDE RENTAL HOUSING AND THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
TENANTS HUMAN RIGHTS GUIDE RENTAL HOUSING AND THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE What is the Ontario Human Rights Code? Ontario s Human Rights Code (the Code) is one of the most important laws in Ontario. The
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. LeBel J.
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Graveline, 2006 SCC 16 [2006] S.C.J. No. 16 DATE: 20060427 DOCKET: 31020 BETWEEN: Rita Graveline Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent OFFICIAL ENGLISH
More informationConflicts Of Interest
Conflicts Of Interest Dan MacDonald November 8, 2012 Today s Agenda What is the legal test that governs external counsel in analyzing conflicts of interest? Duty of Loyalty Three key SCC decisions and
More informationCONSULTATION MEMORANDUM Consultation regarding criminal court record information available through Court Services Online (July 2015)
THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA CONSULTATION MEMORANDUM Consultation regarding criminal court record information available through Court Services Online (July 2015) I. Background Court Services
More informationMULTIPLE PROCEEDINGS IN MULTIPLE FORUMS
1 MULTIPLE PROCEEDINGS IN MULTIPLE FORUMS Jean McKenna Huestis Ritch Barristers & Solicitors Suite 1200; 1809 Barrington Street Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3K8 2 Introduction A single policing incident can
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Pike, 2018 NSSC 38. Jeremy Pike. v. Her Majesty the Queen
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Pike, 2018 NSSC 38 Date: 20180214 Docket: CRPH. No. 470108 Registry: Port Hawkesbury Between: Jeremy Pike v. Her Majesty the Queen Applicant Respondent Judge:
More informationCase Name: Hunter v. Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Page 1 Case Name: Hunter v. Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Between Ralph Hunter, Plaintiff, and The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Bonnie Bishop,
More informationOrder FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY
Order 02-32 FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner July 10, 2002 Quicklaw Cite: [2002] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 32 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/order02-32.pdf
More informationALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F February 9, 2018 ALBERTA JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL
ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F2018-08 February 9, 2018 ALBERTA JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL Case File Number 000909 Office URL: www.oipc.ab.ca Summary: The Applicant
More informationOrder MINISTRY OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. Celia Francis, Adjudicator September 1, 2004
Order 04-22 MINISTRY OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Celia Francis, Adjudicator September 1, 2004 Quicklaw Cite: [2004] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 22 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/order04-22.pdf
More information2 [4] And further that Angelica Cechirc, Alexander Verbon, and Pavel Muzhikov and Stanislav Kavalenka, between October the 28 th, 2003, and March the
Info # 04-01374, 04-01579, 05-01037, 04-01373 Citation: R. v. Muzhikov et al., 2005 ONCJ 67 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Mr. Michael Holme for the Crown AND PAVEL MUZHIKOV STANISLAV
More informationCONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA ACT NO 108 OF 1996
SOUTH AFRICA LTD: HEALTH AND SAFETY LEGAL REGISTER Document Number: MR023 REVISION No.: 0 Page 1 of 7 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA ACT NO 108 OF 1996 CONTENTS CLICK ON PAGE NUMBER TO GO
More informationTORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD REGULATED INTERACTION WITH THE COMMUNITY AND THE COLLECTION OF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD REGULATED INTERACTION WITH THE COMMUNITY AND THE COLLECTION OF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION APPROVED April 24, 2014 Minute No: P102/14 REVIEWED (R) AND/OR AMENDED (A) REPORTING
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Applicant.
CITATION: St. Catharines (City v. IPCO, 2011 ONSC 346 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 351/09 DATE: 20110316 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. B E T W E E N: THE
More informationCOMPETITION BUREAU CONSULTATION ON THE INFORMATION BULLETIN ON THE REGULATED CONDUCT DEFENCE
COMPETITION BUREAU CONSULTATION ON THE INFORMATION BULLETIN ON THE REGULATED CONDUCT DEFENCE Submitted By the Canadian Federation of Agriculture 1101-75 Albert Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5E7 (613) 236-3633
More informationOrder COLLEGE OF PHARMACISTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Order 02-03 COLLEGE OF PHARMACISTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner January 24, 2002 Quicklaw Cite: [2002] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 3 Document URL: http://www.oipcbc.org/orders/order02-03.pdf
More informationA Snapshot of the Law and Trends on the Admissibility and Qualification of Expert Evidence
A Snapshot of the Law and Trends on the Admissibility and Qualification of Expert Evidence By Stacey Hsu and Daniel Reisler of Reisler Franklin LLP, Toronto In light of the recent media coverage surrounding
More informationBILL C-6 An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act. Submission to Standing Committee
BILL C-6 An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act Submission to Standing Committee April 13, 2016 ARCH Disability Law Centre 425 Bloor Street East Suite 110
More informationNEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
March 20, 2009 A-2009-004 NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER REPORT A-2009-004 Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority Summary: The Applicant applied under
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Origin: Appeal from a decision of the Master of the Court of Queen's Bench, dated June 5, 2013 Date: 20131213 Docket: CI 13-01-81367 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Jewish Community Campus of Winnipeg Inc.
More informationMid case management eligibility criteria. Mid case management budget. CM authorizations hours: Factors to be considered
Summary sheet Mid-level case management - Criminal Last updated: January 20, 2016 Mid case management eligibility criteria Criminal law matters may be streamed to case management under three particular
More informationIN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA. Citation: R. v. McCarthy s Roofing Limited, 2016 NSPC 21
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. McCarthy s Roofing Limited, 2016 NSPC 21 Date: March 31, 2016 Docket: 2854099, 2854100, 2854101, 2854102 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty the
More information