Chretien well after emergency brain surgery

MONTREAL — Former prime minister Jean Chretien was cracking jokes and telling stories one day after undergoing two hours of surgery to remove blood that had pooled between his skull and brain.

The 76-year-old arrived at the Jewish General Hospital Friday morning from Shawinigan, Que. after complaining of having difficulty walking.

A CT scan revealed a three-centimetre subdural hematoma, which shifted his brain about 1.5 centimetres. Medical staff said they were surprised by the result because Chretien was completely lucid.

Dr. Jeff Golan, the 33-year-old neurosurgeon who operated on Chretien, said he successfully evacuated the blood that accumulated on the right-hand side of Chretien's brain.

Reza Moridi MPP community BBQ

An excellent event; lots of non-perishable food items were collected and the community turnout was huge!

Sexual assault reporting rate

In an otherwise excellent piece in Saturday's National Post on the futility of prohibiting victimless crimes  Terence Corcoran asks, rhetorically, if there are people who do not report rapes to the police.

In fact, there are.

While concrete statistics are notoriously hard to get, in a careful 2008 review Statistics Canada concluded only about one in ten sexual assaults were reported and that the reporting rate had fallen in the ten years prior to the review.

The report noted many unreported incidents were of sexual touching rather that forced intercourse however, on any analysis, the bulk of serious sexual assaults (including what would traditionally be described as rape) remained unreported.

Lifeguards at Wasaga

http://bit.ly/b57YyX

"So now, on any given weekend, you can have 100,000 people at Wasaga Beach – the largest freshwater beach in the world, 14 kilometres long – and not a single lifeguard. And the fact is that where there are lifeguards on duty, you have a less than 1 per cent chance of death by drowning. "

Sixty-five years since Hiroshima

Japan has marked the 65th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima with the United States represented at the ceremony for the first time.

Name of defendant does not delay discoverability of cause of action

Safai v. Bruce N. Huntley Contracting Limited, 2010 ONCA 545, released today, sets out the useful principle that discoverability is not postponed until the particular name of a potential defendant is known.  The Court writes:

[18]          On the second ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the name of the property owner and the name of the company responsible for winter maintenance services were essential elements of the cause of action and the time did not run until the appellants knew these names or by the exercise of reasonable diligence could ascertain them.  The appellants rely on the following statement of Borins J.A. in Aguonie v. Galion Solid Waste Material Inc. (1998), 38 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.) at p. 170:

While it is true that many of the cases in which it [the discoverability rule] has been applied concern a plaintiff’s discovery of the extent of an injury or the delayed effect or result of a defendant’s negligence, this case concerns the discovery of a tortfeasor.  The discovery of a tortfeasor involves more than the identity of one who may be liable.  It involves the discovery of his or her acts or omissions, which constitute liability.

In my view, counsel for the appellants states the rule too broadly and the above statement from Aguonie does not go as far as he suggests.  The proposition of the appellants, taken literally, would mean that in every motor vehicle accident when the ownership of the defendant’s vehicle was not immediately known, the limitation period would be extended until such time as a routine search of the motor vehicle register could be made.  Thus, the limitation period would not commence on the date of the accident but on the date that the routine motor vehicle search revealed the owner’s name.  This defies common sense and is not what the discoverability rule is intended to accomplish.  As has been said by this court in Zapfe at para. 19:

The discoverability principle is an interpretive tool of general application which guides the interpretation of limitation statutes.  Consideration of whether it applies in any given case is concerned with balancing fairness for both the plaintiff and the proposed defendant.

 

Great video of Zhen Zhen's Third Birthday

http://www.sandiegozoo.org/videos/

Water volleyball this weekend???

Abdullah Khadr extradition decision

Justice Speyer's careful 62 page decision is still largely unavailable but I obtained a copy (thanks to Dennis Edney).

The key in the decision seems to be that the requesting state, here the United States, took a leading role in the initial detention of Khadr in Pakistan. The requesting state paid a significant, and secret, bounty ($500,000) for the arrest and encouraged Pakistan's federal intelligence service to hold Khadr unlawfully in Pakistan for a lengthy period. The Court further found Khadr had been seriously abused in Pakistan and while such abuse was not directed by the requesting state it was, or ought to have been, known to the requesting state.

In effect, Khadr was unlawfully detained and abused and the actions of the requesting state linked that state to the wrongdoing.

The Court then considered the remedy of stay and held that the requesting state had dis-entitled itself from relief by taking steps that undermined the integrity of the judicial system and which the Court had to disassociate itself from. The Court acknowledged a stay was appropriate only in the clearest of cases but held the present case amounted to such.

The case is interesting for several reasons. First, the misconduct in Pakistan did not lead to Court to find the case for extradition was not made out. The Court found, but for the stay, extradition for terrorist related activity would follow. Second, the Court's reasoning -- that only by imposing a stay would the interests of justice be met -- applies the American test for exclusion of evidence and not the Canadian test of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. In fairness, the Court did say this was an extreme case but the test applied is subtly different from that normally seen.

Some might wonder if the case for extradition for terrorist activities was made out why should the wrongful acts of the Pakistan authorities protect Khadr from an American prosecution. The linkage between the two crimes (the terrorist activity and the breach of rights) is temporal only. Perhaps the best answer is that the stay here is used to limit the future breach of rights -- of course, one might then ask, ought the Courts to be acting to deter wrongdoing in general as opposed to dealing with the immediate case before them?

Challenging questions. An appeal will no doubt follow.

Retail price maintenance

The law against retail price maintenance has been long established in Canada. The Competition Act bars price maintenance and yet the practice remains surprisingly common.

Manufacturers even make written agreements with dealers requiring them to maintain list prices -- such agreements are clearly illegal and are solid proof of the wrongdoing.

The Competiton Act provides:

Price Maintenance


76. (1) On application by the Commissioner or a person granted leave under section 103.1, the Tribunal may make an order under subsection (2) if the Tribunal finds that
(a) a person referred to in subsection (3) directly or indirectly
(i) by agreement, threat, promise or any like means, has influenced upward, or has discouraged the reduction of, the price at which the person’s customer or any other person to whom the product comes for resale supplies or offers to supply or advertises a product within Canada, or

(ii) has refused to supply a product to or has otherwise discriminated against any person or class of persons engaged in business in Canada because of the low pricing policy of that other person or class of persons; and

(b) the conduct has had, is having or is likely to have an adverse effect on competition in a market.
Order

(2) The Tribunal may make an order prohibiting the person referred to in subsection (3) from continuing to engage in the conduct referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or requiring them to accept another person as a customer within a specified time on usual trade terms.

...

Advertised price

(6) For the purposes of this section, the publication by a producer or supplier of a product, other than a retailer, of an advertisement that mentions a resale price for the product is proof that the producer or supplier is influencing upward the selling price of any person to whom the product comes for resale, unless the price is expressed in a way that makes it clear to any person whose attention the advertisement comes to that the product may be sold at a lower price.

...

Refusal to supply

(8) If, on application by the Commissioner or a person granted leave under section 103.1, the Tribunal finds that any person, by agreement, threat, promise or any like means, has induced a supplier, whether within or outside Canada, as a condition of doing business with the supplier, to refuse to supply a product to a particular person or class of persons because of the low pricing policy of that person or class of persons, and that the conduct of inducement has had, is having or is likely to have an adverse effect on competition in a market, the Tribunal may make an order prohibiting the person from continuing to engage in the conduct or requiring the person to do business with the supplier on usual trade terms.

We're looking for an election? Not

I ain't seen any signs of that. No, here Stephen Harper is just rallying the troops. I still say an election is 2011 at the earliest:

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper accused opposition parties of pushing for an unwanted election as he opened a summer caucus retreat, pledging to maintain the government's focus on the economy.

"We know there are some in the opposition coalition again threatening an election," Harper said. "But, colleagues, that is not what Canadians want."

Emerging for the first time in more than two weeks, Harper limited his opening remarks to a few minutes, explaining that the caucus had "a lot of ground to cover," in its discussions behind closed doors.

Public inquiry into Pickton?

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100805/pickton-details-100805/

Newly released court materials reveal gruesome details in the case of convicted serial killer Robert Pickton, including testimony from the only woman to survive his deadly scheme.

The woman says Pickton handcuffed and stabbed her at his pig farm in Port Coquitlam, B.C., about 30 kilometres east of Vancouver, in March 1997. She broke free, slit his throat with a knife and stumbled onto the highway, where she was spotted by a passerby.

The woman, whose identity is protected by a publication ban, and Pickton ended up at the same hospital. He was charged with attempted murder, but the case never went to trial.

And though RCMP seized Pickton's clothes, they never checked the items for forensic evidence – tests that would have tied him to two other missing sex trade workers, said CTV's Atlantic Bureau Chief Todd Battis.

…

The woman told her story during Pickton's preliminary trial in 2003, but the testimony was excluded from his murder trial after a judge ruled it did not directly relate to the six charges.

Pickton's videotaped statement to police after his arrest should become public in the next few days.

The newly released materials could bolster demands for a public enquiry on how RCMP and other police agencies handled the investigation, Battis told CTV News Channel on Thursday morning.

"I think it's going to be impossible now for the RCMP and Vancouver police and for the province not to launch a public enquiry at this point," he said.

 

Raspi swimming

Liberals/Conservatives in statistical draw

What does this mean? No election for a while. The Conservatives have made some significant missteps recently – on odd issues, like the census – but missteps nevertheless.

The Liberal Express is having a good effect and slowly slowly Canada is learning about our policies.

BUT, neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals would be clear winners in an election now and summer polls are not always the most accurate – I can’t imagine anyone triggering an election anytime soon.

TORONTO (Reuters) - Canada's Conservatives have virtually lost their lead over the opposition Liberals, according to a poll showing support for the ruling party below 30 percent for the first time since late 2006.

The Ekos survey for the Canadian Broadcasting Corp, released on Thursday, put the Conservatives at 29.7 percent in popular support, down from 32.2 percent in the previous reading.

That puts the party in a statistical draw with the Liberals, who rose to 28.5 percent from 26.4 percent. The main opposition party has been out of power since early 2006.

The Ekos poll is considered accurate to within 1.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Apparently I am important enough to be disliked...

It seems some comments I made about a recent overwide expansion of criminal law powers were noticed by the PMO and met with the reply, more or less, "he's a Liberal so what do you expect"?

I guess it's good to be perceived as a threat... . (It's like that old New Yorker cartoon of two fluffy bunnies where one says to the other "I know I'm not a threat but it would be nice to be seen to be a threat").

That said, I am a blue(ish) Liberal and sometimes agree with the Conservatives.

And, maybe I am the only person online saying it, but if the reporting of crime really is down because people think there's no point, then Stockwell Day may be right to say the reported crime rate is not reliable.

Now, there are lots of issues here -- why build prisons for criminals who commit unreported crime since they, obviously, won't go to jail -- but a decline in reporting crime is worrisome and Day is right to raise the issue.

And I think he has a point about unreported crime:

http://tinyurl.com/36axndj

Important review of the test in W(D)

Today’s decision, released a moment ago, in R. v. V.Y., 2010 ONCA 544 provides a useful and important restatement of the test in R. v. W. (D.) (1991), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 397 (S.C.C.).; note there is a strong dissent by Moldaver J.A. The Court ruled:

[8] The Supreme Court Canada decision in W.(D.) is the seminal authority on defining the burden of proof in criminal trials. It sets out a three stage analysis to be included in jury instructions, and while the steps are familiar and often recited in decisions, they are worth restating as it would, in my view, have been helpful to apply them in the circumstances of this case:

First, if the trial judge believed the evidence of the appellant, he must be acquitted.

Second, if the trial judge did not believe the evidence of the appellant, but was left in reasonable doubt by it, then again, he must be acquitted.

Third, even if the trial judge was not left in doubt by the evidence of the appellant, he was then required to decide whether, on the basis of the evidence he did accept, he was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the appellant.

[9] The three stage analysis in W.(D.) is frequently cited for the proposition that a criminal trial is not a contest of credibility between the accused and the complainant; that disbelieving the accused does not lead necessarily to conviction. As Fish J. describes it at para. 25 of C.L.Y., “[t]he very purpose of adhering to the procedure set out in W.(D.) is to foreclose an inadvertent shifting of the burden of proof where the complainant and the accused have both testified and the outcome of the trial turns on their credibility as witnesses.” (emphasis in the original)

[10] In C.L.Y., the Supreme Court revisited the W.(D.) analysis, and was divided on how strictly it should be applied. In that case, the trial judge had reviewed the evidence of the complainant and concluded that she believed it before considering the evidence of the accused.

[11] Writing in dissent, Fish J. found that the trial judge had committed a reviewable error. In his view, the trial judge had found the accused guilty before even evaluating his evidence, and thus shifted the burden to the accused. As he stated at para. 30 of his reasons:

Unfortunately, the appellant’s presumption of innocence had by that point been displaced by a presumption – indeed, a finding – of guilt. The trial judge could hardly believe both the appellant and the complainant. Before even considering the appellant’s evidence, she had already concluded that she believed the complainant. In effect, the trial judge had thus decided to convict the appellant unless his evidence persuaded her to do otherwise. (Emphasis in the original)

[12] In contrast, the majority stressed that W.(D.) need not be “religiously followed” and saw, “no blue print for error in the trial judge’s failure to observe W.(D.) as a catechism”: paras. 7 and 11. Central to the majority’s reasoning was Abella J.’s conclusion at para. 12 that the mere order in which the trial judge had reviewed the evidence and stated her conclusions did not, of necessity, create a shift in the burden of proof:

The trial judge’s reasons reveal that she understood that a finding that the [complainant] was credible did not mean that the onus shifted to the accused to show that he was not guilty. I find it difficult to see how the sequence in which the trial judge set out her findings of credibility can be said to undermine her articulated and correct statement of the law, or demonstrate that she lost sight of a paramount legal principle like reasonable doubt.

[13] Significantly both the majority and dissent agreed that it would be an error for a trial judge to find that because a complainant was credible, the onus shifts to the accused to disprove his guilt. What separated the majority and dissent was the majority’s finding that there was nothing to suggest that this error had been committed, while the dissent found that it had been and that following the structure of W.(D.) would have guarded against such error: per Fish J. at para. 31.

[14] In considering issues around the W.(D.) analysis, trial judges are presumed to know the law regarding the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof. They are not required to explain in detail the process they followed to reach a verdict; they only need to give reasons that the parties can understand and that permit appellate review: R. v. Sheppard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869.

[15] I would add that it is also essential to keep in mind the comments of Fish J. at para. 33 in C.L.Y.: “[J]udges may know the law yet err in its application; they may know the facts, yet findings of credibility unsupported by the record. What matters in either instance is the substance and not the form of the decision.”

Pickton - a missed chance to stop a serial killer

The jury at serial killer Robert Pickton's trial never heard from a woman who got away from his pig farm in Port Coquitlam, B.C.  That’s almost certainly the right result.  What isn’t so right is that an opportunity to stop a serial killer was missed.

The unnamed woman testified at Pickton's preliminary hearing but not at his trial.  She told the court she was paid for sex at Pickton's farm in 1997, four years before the last victim Pickton is accused of murdering.  She said Pickton came up behind her and put a handcuff onto one of her wrists, and she quickly grabbed a knife and slashed him across the neck.  Both ended up in hospital with life-threatening injuries and a key was found in Pickton's clothes that matched the handcuffs, though charges against him in the case were later stayed.

The woman was not allowed to testify at the trial because the judge ruled her evidence had the potential for prejudice.  And in so finding the judge was right. 

 

Pickton was not on trial for the assault on the unnamed woman but for murdering others.  Trials are complex enough without bringing in unrelated misdeeds.  And, as mentioned in a recent posting, with the acquittal rate in Canada standing at 3%, the Crown does not appear to be overly hampered in getting convictions.

 

BUT …

 

Four years before Pickton killed his last victim (and how many he killed in that four years will never be known) there were very good grounds to charge him and a basis to search the pig farm.  Apparently this was not done because the unnamed woman was mentally unstable.  What could have been had the search gone ahead?  Or if the charges were proceeded with?

 

 

Sleeping in the sunshine

Critics question Tories' new measures to tackle organised crime

A case of overkill:

http://bit.ly/cF83ta

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

By Norma Greenaway, Postmedia News

OTTAWA — Prosecutors and police will have enhanced powers to tackle prostitution, illegal gambling and drug trafficking activities by organized crime under new measures announced Wednesday by the Conservative government.

The new rules expand the list of what constitutes a serious crime in the Criminal Code — meaning offences punishable by five or more years in prison — to activities such as keeping a common bawdy house, keeping a gaming or betting house and exporting, importing or producing illegal drugs.

Although the new rules were welcomed by police organizations, opposition MPs said the government should have subjected the proposed changes to parliamentary scrutiny.

Defence lawyers described them as overkill, and said the government should carefully monitor their implementation.

"They are using a very blunt object, painting with a very broad brush," said David Anber, a criminal lawyer in Ottawa, arguing a lot of nickel-and-dime crooks with no links to organized crime could wind up being branded as serious offenders.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, who unveiled the changes at a news conference in Montreal, said the crimes being targeted are often "signature activities" of organized crime rings.

The new rules, quietly approved by cabinet last month, will allow police and prosecutors to more easily use tools such as wire taps while investigating those crimes, the Justice Department said in a statement.

They also will be able to seek stiffer sentences, block bail and parole eligibility and seize assets that are the proceeds of crime, it said.

The Criminal Code defines "criminal organization" as three or more people acting together in criminal ventures, and the federal government estimates 750 organized crime groups are operating across the country.

James Morton, a criminal lawyer in Toronto, said the new rules spread the net "way too wide" and their implementation must be closely monitored. "This is a case of overkill," he said.

He said, for example, three prostitutes living and receiving their clients in a shared apartment or three or more people playing poker for money could, if convicted, be branded as "serious offenders" and sentenced to five years in prison.

No human race is superior; no religious faith is inferior. All collective judgments are wrong. Only racists make them.

Elie Wiesel

Corbett Rulings

R. v. Bomberry, 2010 ONCA 542, released today, makes clear that a Corbett ruling, editing an accused criminal record, ought not to be based on fairness to Crown witnesses but rather solely on the credibility of the accused.  In making a Corbett ruling places limitations on the use of prior convictions so as to preserve the right of the accused to a fair trial.  The key is to ensure the use of prior convictions avoids the risk of prejudicing an accused's trial by introduction of evidence of prior misdeeds. The Court rules:

Issue #2 – The Corbett Ruling

[42]          The appellant argues that the trial judge erred in ruling that the Crown could cross-examine her on her criminal record – specifically, on her three convictions for assault causing bodily harm and her one conviction for assault. 

[43]          Prior to testifying, the appellant brought an application pursuant to R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670, requesting that the trial judge edit her record of criminal convictions for its use under s. 12 of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5. 

[44]          The trial judge edited the record.  He removed all convictions prior to October 2000, which included two assault convictions.  He also removed a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon in 2004.  The record that remained included convictions for failing to comply with a probation order on two occasions, obstructing a police officer on two occasions, theft over $5,000, possession of goods obtained by crime under $5,000, possession of a scheduled substance, as well as the four assault convictions referred to above. 

[45]          In making his ruling, the trial judge noted that the Crown was “faced with an attack on the credibility of its witnesses”, in particular Detectives Turner and Aherns, as well as an attack on the character of Uiuiu.  In his brief reasons, the trial judge seemed to be concerned that it was necessary to admit the appellant’s record, as he edited it, so that the jury would not be misled into thinking that the Crown witnesses were disreputable and the appellant was of good character.  In other words, admitting the record in the edited form was necessary to ensure that there was not an imbalance in favour of the appellant. 

[46]          The trial judge seemed similarly concerned that because the appellant had brought out some evidence of Uiuiu’s bad character, it was necessary to allow the appellant’s assault convictions to be introduced so as to avoid unfairness in the way the jury would view him and the appellant. 

[47]          In my view, the trial judge erred in admitting the appellant’s record of convictions for the four assault charges.  Those convictions would not add anything to the jury’s analysis of the appellant’s credibility.  The balance of the appellant’s criminal record, as edited, together with the other evidence that had been admitted about her background and lifestyle, was more than enough to alert the jurors that they should exercise great caution in assessing the appellant’s credibility. 

[48]          Not only were the assault convictions unnecessary for the task of assessing the appellant’s credibility, but they were also potentially very prejudicial to her in terms of opening the door to propensity reasoning.  Those convictions were close in time to Uiuiu’s death and they portrayed the appellant as a person prone to violence.  While the trial judge gave the appropriate limiting instructions to the jury as to the use to be made of the appellant’s criminal record, including the assault convictions created an unnecessary risk that some jurors could use these convictions impermissibly. 

[49]          Moreover, if the trial judge had removed the assault convictions from the appellant’s record, there would not have been an unfair imbalance in favour of the appellant as compared to the Crown witnesses.  As I have noted above, there was plenty of other evidence admitted at trial, including the evidence of Detective Turner, to show that the appellant was not a person of good character.  There was no need to add the four assault convictions to what was already a strong body of evidence on this point.

[50]          In any event, the appellant’s trial counsel did not challenge the good character of any of the Crown witnesses, including Detectives Turner and Aherns.  Defence counsel only challenged the accuracy and reliability of the evidence of the Crown witnesses, not their good character.  There is a distinction.  Questioning witnesses’ accounts of events and challenging the accuracy of those accounts does not create the potential for the kind of imbalance discussed in Corbett:  R. v. W.B. (2000), 145 C.C.C. (3d) 498 at paras. 46-47.

[51]          For essentially the same reasons, I do not consider that it was necessary to admit the record of the four assault convictions so as to remove any imbalance that the jury may have perceived between the respective characters of the appellant and Uiuiu.

[52]          In summary, I am of the view that, in the context of all of the evidence admitted in this case, the trial judge erred in not excluding the four assault convictions from the appellant’s criminal record.

 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was unharmed by an attack

TEHRAN - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was unharmed by an attack with a homemade explosive device on his motorcade during a visit to the western city of Hamadan on Wednesday, a source in his office said.

The source said Ahmadinejad's convoy was targeted as he was travelling from Hamadan's airport to give a speech in a local sports arena. The president was unhurt but others had been injured in the blast. One person was arrested.

"There was an attack this morning. Nothing happened to the president's car," the source told Reuters. "Investigations continue . . . to find out who was behind it."

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Iran+Ahmadinejad+unhurt+after+blast/3357639/story.html#ixzz0ve3QgvrI

I guess it's time to get up?

Drop in reporting of crime

Today's Post describes an apparent drop in reporting of crime -- it does appear that over time there is less and less reporting of crime. Perhaps this explains some of the drop in the crime rate -- good statistics require a good base (census anyone?).

Everyone wants a Senate seat

... or, Stephen Harper has a new approach to get the Green vote???

@PMHarper (verified) follows @freepornpics

It is sometimes interesting to see who people follow on twitter.

You have no real control who follows you, but those who you follow are selected (somehow) by you.

Now, in fairness, there are odd robots which force their way into twitter accounts -- there was a nasty racist who kept turning up as someone I followed on my account -- but if you pay attention those robots can be removed.

Anyway, I decided to scan who PMHarper (verified) - that means it's really Stephen Harper - follows.
It's a very odd list.

Perhaps a quarter are locked -- so maybe they are Conservative Party leaders in a special circle (and that's totally sensible). But many are pretty obscure and many haven't been live on twitter for months -- so there is no pruning of accounts.

And strangest of all -- PMHarper is following @freepornpics.

Now, does that mean the Prime Minister is downloading porn on his smart-phone? No, of course not -- but it does mean whoever is tweeting for him has something to answer for ... .

Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right to do what we ought

Lord Acton

Thoughts on the acquittal rate

When I read the acquittal rate for Canada as a whole was 3% I thought well, ok, but let's see what the conviction rate is. After all, if the conviction rate much lower because of withdrawals etc then the 3% acquittal rate is somewhat irrelevant.

Turns out I was right and wrong.

The withdrawal rate in Ontario is around 40% but that includes withdrawals of multiple charges -- so a guilty plea to an over 80 with a withdrawal of an impaired counts as a withdrawal. So the functional withdrawal rate for Ontario is closer to 20%.

And that means an 80% conviction rate.

This may mean the police tend to get it right when they charge someone. Or it may mean the system leans to conviction.

Either way, if you're charged you are likely to be convicted. Very likely.

Only 3 in 100 acquitted

An outright acquittal in a criminal trial in Canada is a lot less common than most people might think.

 

A finding of "not guilty" was the result in just more than 3% of the more than 390,000 criminal cases in the country in 2008-2009, according to data recently released by Statistics Canada.

 

If Quebec is excluded from the totals the percentage drops to a little more than 1% -- just 3,570 people acquitted in the rest of the country last year.

 

 

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Acquittals+account+only+cases+data/3352015/story.html#ixzz0vYajY9sz

 

Leave in summary conviction appeals

R. v. Price, 2010 ONCA 541 provides a helpful summary of the law regarding when leave will be granted in summary conviction matters:

 

 

The Principles Governing Leave to Appeal in Summary Conviction Appeals

 

[21]          Under s. 839(1) of the Criminal Code, leave to appeal from decisions made by judges of the summary conviction appeal court is granted sparingly. There is no one-size-fits-all standard by which to determine on which side of the leave to appeal line an application will fall.  But two variables dominate.  The first is the significance of the questions of law raised to the general administration of justice. And the second is the merits of the proposed grounds of appeal: R. v. R. (R.) (2008), 234 C.C.C. (3d) 463 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 37.

 

[22]          Under R. (R.), leave to appeal may be granted where the merits of the proposed questions of law are arguable, even though the grounds may not be strong, provided the proposed questions of law transcend the borders of the specific case and reveal some significance for the administration of justice more broadly.  Leave to appeal may also be granted where a “clear” error is apparent, despite a lack of significance to the administration of justice generally:  R. (R.)  at paras. 32 and 37.

 

[23]          In applications for leave to appeal under s. 839(1), counsel make written submissions on the leave issue in their facta and, if necessary, in oral argument.  The determination of the leave issue is made by a panel of three judges on the date on which the appeal is scheduled to be heard: R. (R.) at para. 38.

Tempest in a niqab???

The video from CTV is below -- and as far as I can see the women's faces were perfectly visible. Just because the women's hair is not visible means nothing:

"As federal authorities investigate a video purporting to show two veiled Muslims passing unchecked through an airport boarding gate in Montreal, a prominent Islamic group dismisses it as part of "a nasty campaign going on against the niqab."

Faced with unverified reports that niqab-clad travellers are routinely allowed to board airplanes without having their photo identification double-checked, Transport Canada has vowed to examine whether a security gap exists.

"A serious concern has been brought to our attention. We're taking it very seriously and we're immediately going to look into it," Transport Minister John Baird said yesterday."

http://tinyurl.com/2esc468

Happy Monday -- Giovanna

I haven't failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work: Thomas Edison

Remember, you can be impaired for legal purposes at well below 80

The new regulations affecting young people do not change the legal fact that you can be found guilty of impaired driving regardless of the level of blood alcohol. So even if you blow, say, 50 if you show impairment you can be convicted of the criminal offence.

The "other" bald guy

Somebody said I should run for Toronto mayor because my hair was as good as Miller's. Well, I do have good hair but ... I still prefer the "other" bald guy:

"The other Bald Guy Rocco Rossi has been talking up a storm, delivering his well-thought-out policy platforms and working night and day to get his name out."

http://bit.ly/bWE40e

Foreign travel and foreign laws

The problem here is that tourists don't expect to run into foreign legal problems -- and almost none ever do. But ... when problems emerge the foreign nation's laws apply. And a foreigner visiting Canada who got into trouble might well not get bail. Now that's not to justify unjustifiable foreign laws -- the death penalty for drugs or, as below, travel restrictions following traffic accidents -- but foreign nations are sovereign and visiting them means you are subject to their laws:

New tourists take heed of Cody's case
CHRIS DOUCETTE, Toronto Sun

SANTA LUCIA, CUBA As Cody LeCompte anxiously awaits the end of his Cuban vacation from hell, dozens of other Canadians have just arrived on the tropical island eager to begin their holiday in the sun.

A busload of new tourists pulled in early Saturday to the Gran Club Santa Lucia, the same resort where the Simcoe teen has been detained for over three months.

It seems most, but not all, are aware of Cody's plight, having heard the story in the news over the last week or so.

And while it was too late for this bunch to change their travel plans, many said they would not be renting a car in the Communist country after hearing the 19-year-old's story.

"Although, there was one man I met in the hotel lobby who was planning to rent a car until he overheard me talking on the phone to the Canadian embassy," said Danette LeCompte, who is over $30,000 in debt from trying to get her son home.
...
Cody has been detained in Cuba since the end of April because of an accident that wasn't even his fault.

Although the teen's story has been talked about across the country recently, Montreal native Isabelle Ledoux, 35, hadn't heard anything about it until she bumped into Danette at the resort.

Ledoux said she has been to Cuba nine times, so she is well aware of the perils of rental cars.

"We really need to make sure everybody knows about this so it doesn't happen to anyone else," she said. Ledoux said even though she arranged her trip to Cuba online, she received a notice in the mail with a list of warnings on it.

"If my travel agent had told me about these Cuban laws (that can leave a tourist detained indefinitely), we never would have rented a car," Danette said