Canadian Criminal Law PDF

Definitions and Critical/Analytical Thinking Questions ​ Criminal Law: A body of law that defines conduct prohibited by the state and establishes punishments for violations. ​ Due Process: Legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights owed to a person. It ensures...

Definitions and Critical/Analytical Thinking Questions ​ Criminal Law: A body of law that defines conduct prohibited by the state and establishes punishments for violations. ​ Due Process: Legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights owed to a person. It ensures fairness in legal proceedings and safeguards individuals from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property. ​ Deterrence Theory: The idea that punishment will discourage individuals and the public from committing crimes. ○​ Specific deterrence: Punishment to prevent an individual from reoffending. ○​ General deterrence: Punishment as a warning to society. ​ Federal Criminal Law Power: Only the Parliament of Canada has authority to create criminal laws (Constitution Act of 1867, 91(27)). Vagueness and Vague Laws ​ Vagueness: A law is vague when it does not clearly define prohibited conduct, making it difficult for individuals to understand and comply with it. ​ Criteria for vagueness: ○​ Fails to detail required or prohibited actions for citizens. ○​ Lacks clarity on procedures for law enforcement or judicial application. ​ Effects: ○​ Reduces legal certainty, making compliance difficult. ○​ Increases discretion for law enforcement, leading to arbitrary application and inconsistent enforcement. ○​ Courts may strike down vague laws as unconstitutional. Substantive vs. Procedural Law ​ Substantive Criminal Law: Defines crimes and punishments (e.g., assault under the Criminal Code of Canada). It outlines what actions constitute an offense and the legal elements required for conviction. ​ Procedural Law: Governs how laws are enforced, ensuring fairness in judicial processes (e.g., burden of proof, rights of the accused, trials, and appeals). Federal Criminal Law Power ​ Ultimate Power: Parliament creates laws, but courts interpret and enforce them. ​ Judicial Discretion: Judges apply interpretative pluralism to consider different perspectives in legal decisions. Jurisdiction: Federal vs. Provincial Powers ​ Federal: Enacts criminal laws under criminal law power. ​ Provincial: Can create regulatory offenses (e.g., environmental, health laws) and enforce them. ​ Conflicts: If a provincial law conflicts with a federal law, the federal law prevails under the doctrine of paramountcy. 3 Necessary Elements to Create a Law 1.​ Prohibition: Defines prohibited conduct. 2.​ Penalty: Establishes punishment. 3.​ Demonstration of Public Evil: The behavior must be harmful to society. ​ Includes omissions (failure to act when legally required, such as failing to report a crime). Case Studies ​ Syncrude v. Canada: Examines whether pollution qualifies as a public evil and whether federal environmental laws can override provincial jurisdiction. ​ R v. Sullivan: Addresses the defense of automatism due to extreme intoxication, emphasizing the balance between individual responsibility and constitutional rights. ​ R v. Askov: Establishes the right to trial within a reasonable time, setting an 8-month guideline for unreasonable delays in criminal proceedings. ​ R v. Oakes: Establishes the Oakes Test for limiting Charter rights, ensuring that restrictions serve a significant and proportionate purpose. Binding Principles (Comity) ​ Courts strive to cooperate across different levels to enhance legitimacy and consistency in law application. Who Can Remove Laws? ​ Parliament: The only body with authority to repeal laws. ​ Courts: Can declare laws unconstitutional, but cannot remove them from legislation without parliamentary action. Standard for Review in Administrative Law ​ Reasonableness Standard: Focuses on whether a decision is justified and reasonable under the circumstances. ​ Correctness Standard: Determines if a decision aligns strictly with legal principles without deference to the original decision-maker. Principles of Criminal Law ​ Due Process: Ensures fair legal proceedings and protects individuals from arbitrary punishment. ​ Rule of Law: Laws apply equally to all individuals, regardless of status. ​ Predictability: Legal outcomes should be consistent and foreseeable based on existing laws. ​ Transparency: Legal processes should be open and understandable. ​ Presumption of Innocence: The accused is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ​ Open Court Principle: Court proceedings should be accessible to the public to ensure accountability. Corporations and Constitutional Laws  ​ Legal Personality: Corporations possess legal rights similar to individuals. ​ Charter Rights for Corporations: They can invoke rights such as Section 8 (Protection against Unreasonable Search & Seizure). ​ Limitation: Cannot use Section 12 (Cruel and Unusual Punishment) as it applies only to individuals, reinforcing the distinction between corporate and human rights. Key Legal Clauses ​ Sunset Clause: Laws automatically expire after five years unless renewed by Parliament. ​ Notwithstanding Clause (Section 33): Allows Parliament or provinces to pass laws that override certain Charter rights for up to five years. ​ Reasonable Limits Clause (Section 1): Charter rights are not absolute and may be limited if the restriction serves a pressing and substantial purpose. Habeas Corpus ​ Definition: A legal principle ensuring protection against unlawful detention. ​ Rights include: ○​ Seeking legal counsel. ○​ Knowing the reasons for detainment. ○​ Having a lawyer present during interrogation. ○​ Challenging detainment in court. ​ Example: Controversy in terrorism cases where Habeas Corpus protections may be restricted in the name of national security. Deontic Language ​ Definition: Legal obligation-based language (e.g., "shall," "must," "is required to"). It dictates duties and constraints in legal texts. Reverse Onus & Burden of Proof ​ Reverse Onus: Shifts the burden of proof to the accused in certain cases, requiring them to prove their innocence rather than the prosecution proving guilt. ​ Relates to: Presumption of Innocence (Section 11d), ensuring that legal burdens are applied fairly. Keegstra Case & 3-Part Test ​ Issue: Criminal prosecution for hate speech and its limits under the Charter. ​ Legal Question: Can limiting speech be justified under Section 1 (Reasonable Limits Clause)? ​ Test Criteria: 1.​ Is the law’s objective pressing and substantial? 2.​ Is the law rationally connected to its purpose? 3.​ Is the law proportional in its impact? Borderline Cases  ​ Definition: Cases that fall into gray areas where laws are unclear or open to interpretation. ​ Legal Approach: ○​ Courts balance flexibility and precision in law application. ○​ Judges consider societal norms and evolving legal standards in decisions. ○​ Example: Determining whether an act of public nudity constitutes indecent exposure based on contextual factors. Key Definitions & Critical Thinking Concepts Vagueness and Vague Laws ​ Definition: A law is vague if it fails to provide clear guidance to citizens or law enforcement. ​ Problem: Vague laws can lead to arbitrary enforcement and judicial uncertainty. ​ Example: If a law criminalizes "offensive behavior" but does not define what is "offensive," it may be struck down as unconstitutional. Substantive vs. Procedural Law ​ Substantive Law: Defines what is a crime and punishments (e.g., Criminal Code of Canada). ​ Procedural Law: Defines how laws are enforced (e.g., rules of arrest, trial procedures). ​ Example: ○​ Substantive: Assault is defined in Section 265 of the CCC. ○​ Procedural: The police must follow due process to enforce assault laws. Assault: Definition vs. Enforcement ​ Definition in the CCC (Criminal Code of Canada, Section 265): ○​ Assault occurs when a person: 1.​ Applies force intentionally, directly or indirectly, without consent. 2.​ Threatens force, causing the victim to believe force will be used. 3.​ Impedes another person while carrying a weapon. ​ Enforcement: ○​ Police must determine intent and consent. ○​ Courts assess evidence and testimonies to decide if the law was broken. Jurisdiction & Federal vs. Provincial Power Federal Criminal Law Power  ​ Who creates criminal laws? The Federal Government (Parliament) under Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act (1867). ​ Who interprets laws? The Courts, especially the Supreme Court of Canada. ​ Who enforces laws? Provincial governments and law enforcement agencies. Jurisdiction: Who Has the Most Power? ​ Parliament has the ultimate authority to create criminal laws. ​ Courts interpret laws and determine validity under the Charter. ​ Provincial governments can create laws under Section 92 but cannot override federal criminal laws. Conflict Between Provincial & Federal Law ​ If a provincial law contradicts a federal law, federal law is supreme. ​ Example: If a province bans a federally approved drug, federal law prevails. 3 Necessary Elements to Create a Criminal Law 1.​ Prohibition – The law must clearly state what is illegal. 2.​ Penalty – There must be a punishment if the law is broken. 3.​ Demonstration of Public Evil – The act must cause harm to society. ​ Must have all three for a law to be valid. ​ Example: Pollution laws prohibit dumping waste (prohibition), impose fines (penalty), and justify the law based on harm to the environment (public evil). Omissions in Criminal Law ​ Failing to act can be a crime if there is a legal duty to act. ​ Example: Failing to provide the necessities of life for a child (CCC Section 215). Key Case Studies 1. Syncrude v. Canada (2016) ​ Issue: Conflict between federal criminal power and provincial legislation. ​ Question: Is pollution an "evil" that justifies federal intervention? ​ Outcome: Courts ruled that pollution is an evil and can be regulated under criminal law.  ​ Significance: Established environmental law as part of federal criminal power. 2. R v. Sullivan (2022) ​ Issue: Automatism and extreme intoxication as a defense. ​ Question: Can a person avoid criminal responsibility due to involuntary actions? ​ Outcome: ○​ Supreme Court ruled that extreme intoxication could be a defense in rare cases. ○​ Parliament later revised the law to limit this defense. ​ Key Legal Principle: ○​ Stare Decisis (Binding Precedent): Courts should follow past rulings, but they can distinguish cases when necessary. 3. R v. Askov (1990) ​ Issue: Right to a timely trial. ​ Question: Does a 3-year trial delay violate Charter Section 11(b)? ​ Outcome: ○​ Court ruled excessive delays violate fundamental rights. ○​ Many charges were dismissed due to delays. ​ Significance: ○​ Courts must ensure timely trials. ○​ Led to stricter timelines for court proceedings. 4. R v. Oakes (1986) ​ Issue: Legal test for limiting Charter rights. ​ Question: Was the law proportionate and justified? ​ Outcome: ○​ Established the Oakes Test (used to determine if a law that limits rights is valid). ​ Binding Principles (Comity): ○​ Courts at different levels work together to ensure legitimacy and fairness. Legal Authority & Review Standards Who Has the Power to Remove Laws? ​ Parliament can repeal laws. ​ Courts can strike down laws as unconstitutional. ​ Example: Courts removed mandatory minimum sentences that violated Charter rights. Standard for Review in Administrative Law ​ Two standards: 1.​ Reasonableness – Was the decision reasonable given the circumstances? 2.​ Correctness – Was the decision legally correct? ​ Courts generally defer to administrative bodies unless their decision is unreasonable. Principles of Criminal Law Core Principles ​ Due Process – Fair legal procedures must be followed. ​ Rule of Law – Laws apply equally to everyone. ​ Predictability – Courts must follow precedent unless there's a valid reason to deviate. ​ Transparency – Legal proceedings should be open and fair. ​ Presumption of Innocence – Burden of proof is on the prosecution. ​ Open Court Principle – Trials should be publicly accessible. Corporations and Constitutional Law Legal Personality & Personhood ​ Corporations have "legal personality" and can claim some Charter rights. ​ Example: Can claim Section 8 protection from unreasonable search and seizure. ​ Limitation: ○​ Section 12 (Cruel and Unusual Punishment) applies only to humans. ○​ Example: Corporations cannot challenge excessive fines under Section 12. Charter Provisions & Legal Concepts 1. Sunset Clause ​ Laws passed under the Notwithstanding Clause expire after 5 years unless renewed. 2. Notwithstanding Clause (Section 33) ​ Allows governments to override certain Charter rights. ​ Example: Quebec's French-language law. 3. Reasonable Limits Clause (Section 1) ​ Allows limits on rights if they are justified in a free and democratic society. ​ Example: Hate speech laws limit free expression. Habeas Corpus & Rights of the Detained Definition ​ Right to challenge unlawful detention. ​ Key Rights: 1.​ Right to legal counsel. 2.​ Right to know the reason for detention. 3.​ Right to challenge detention in court. ​ Example: The U.S. under Obama suspended habeas corpus in terrorism cases. Other Key Legal Concepts 1. Deontic Language ​ Refers to the use of legal obligations in law. ​ Example: "Shall" means mandatory, while "may" means discretionary. 2. Reverse Onus & Burden of Proof ​ Reverse Onus: When the accused must prove their innocence (e.g., some drug possession laws). ​ Charter Section 11(d) protects against reverse onus, ensuring presumption of innocence. 3. Keegstra Case ​ Issue: Hate speech vs. free expression. ​ Key Test: Limiting laws must pass Section 1 of the Charter. ​ Stare Decisis - ensures stability through continuity and predictability in the application of the law ​ Judicial Interpretation - ensures that the law is flexible to change and reflective of current value and belief systems The Rule of Law ​ Criminal law applies to all  ○​ Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law as enshrined in the Charter ​ Therefore, laws ought to be applied in fairness and impartiality and without favour ​ Other principles that follow: ○​ Laws must be ‘on the books’ and passed by the government ○​ Laws must be clear – precise determination of what is prohibited and what is not Section 173 of the Criminal Code ​ Requisites to determine whether or not the action constitutes ‘indecency’ and thereby becomes a summary offence ○​ a) public place in the presence of one or more people ○​ b) in place with intent to insult or offend ​ Defined ‘public place’ ○​ The public has access or by invitation, express or implied witnessed by others ○​ Not a viable defence that one did not think there were witnesses Section 1 - ‘Reasonable Limits’ Clause ​ Translates to freedoms and rights are not absolute Section 33 - the ‘notwithstanding clause’ ​ Provisions means that federal government can pass a law that violates fundamental rights by simply invoking this clause ​ Example - Quebec government in 1989 invoked this clause to permit French-only signs in the province ​ Justified on grounds that it find the rest of this Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter - Section 2 ​ Freedom of religion, thought, belief, expression, opinion, and freedom of the press Democratic Rights ​ Sections 3, 4, 5 contain protections for basic democratic rights that can NOT be overridden ​ With the use of the notwithstanding clause Section 6 - Mobility Rights ​ Citizens and PRs right to leave, enter, travel, live, earn a living in Canada ​ Employment rights however (licensing and certification) are considered reasonable limits under the Charter Subsection 6 (4) of the Charter ​ Permits affirmative action programs to right imbalances in various areas of employment Section 7 and 14 - Legal Rights ​ “Life, liberty and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” Section 7 & Due Process ​ Liberty is defined as right to move about, associate with whom ever and marry whom ever ​ Person can not be deprived within due provess ○​ Fair, impartial hearing, opportunity to defend one’s self Section 10 - Habeus Corpus  ​ Those detained have a right to be told of their right to consul, opportunity to contact one, to challenge arrest or detention based on grounds of habeus corpus ​ Onus on one being deprived to show reason for unreasonable detainment, while onus on detainer to show lawfulness Section 11 - Criminal Proceedings at Trials [R v. Askov 1990] ​ Major provisional section within the charter that outlines procedural elements of the alw in criminal cases - see Roach p 33-60 ​ Section 11 b was applied in R v. Askov (1990) ○​ Charges dismissed because of rights violation ○​ Excessive delay (+3 years) in bringing case to trial ○​ Anything over 8 months is considered ‘unreasonable’