The premier weekly newspaper for the legal profession in Ontario
Issue link: https://digital.lawtimesnews.com/i/51537
top cases But she suspended her ruling for 30 days, acknowl- edging the government would need time to determine its next step. The decision was later suspended for an additional 30 days. "I also recognize that a consequence of this decision may be that unlicensed brothels may be operated and in a way that may not be in the public interest. It is legiti- mate for government to study, consult, and determine how to best address this issue," Himel wrote. Sex workers Terri-Jean Bedford, Val- erie Scott, and Amy Lebovitch launched the challenge in which they argued they should be allowed to conduct their lawful business in a safe environment. "It's like emancipation day for sex-trade workers," Bedford told reporters at a news confer- ence after the decision was released. } R. v. Sinclair, R. v. Willier, and R. v. McCrimmon A deeply divided Supreme Court circum- scribed suspects' rights to a lawyer during police interrogation in a trio of decisions released in October. Writing for the majority in the 5-4 decision in Sinclair, Chief Justice Bever- ley McLachlin and Justice Louise Charron rejected the idea of American-style Miranda warnings that they said would be too obstructive to police. "While the police must be respectful of an individual's Charter rights, a rule that would require the police to automatically retreat upon a detainee stating that he or she has nothing to say would not strike the proper bal- ance between the public interest in the investigation of crimes and the suspect's interest in being left alone," they wrote. All three appellants had consulted a lawyer after their arrests but were denied another consultation during ques- tioning by police. The majority on the top court ruled such requests need to be granted only when a dramatic change in cir- cumstances occurs during interrogation. In their dissent, justices Louis LeBel, Morris Fish, and Rosalie Abella rejected that approach "on the basis that it focuses on the objective observations and conclusions of the police, who have the detainee in their total control, and not on the subjective needs of the accused." In a separate dissent, Justice Ian Binnie said the deci- sion gave police a "trump card" licensing them to "detain and isolate" a suspect for hours while brushing aside assertions of the right to silence. The Supreme Court made three notable rulings on suspects' rights to a lawyer in October. interrogated him despite knowing he had been subjected to sleep deprivation techniques. In response, it ordered the government to remedy the breach. The government responded with a diplomatic note to U.S. officials in which it requested that the evidence obtained by Canadian authorities not be used in Khadr's prosecution. But that wasn't enough for Federal Court Justice Russel Zinn, who in July gave the government seven days to come up with a better remedy and threat- ened to impose one of his own if it failed to comply. Zinn said the only possible remedy he saw was for Canada to ask for Khadr's repatriation and noted that in his view, the government was bound to attempt to do so even if the United States might refuse the request. "The fact that the one remedy available falls within the scope of the government's prerogative power does not pre- vent the court from fashioning a remedy," Zinn wrote. The government was eventually granted a stay of the decision 10 days after Zinn's deadline had expired. In the meantime, Khadr pleaded guilty to war crimes in a plea deal that could see him return to Canada next year to serve the final seven years of his sentence. 2010 top news & newsmakers 9 } Khadr v. Canada The Harper government clashed with the courts this year in accusing them of interfering in foreign relations over the repatriation of Omar Khadr. In January, the Supreme Court ruled Khadr's Charter rights had been breached by Canadian officials when they