Law Times

Page 6 April 25, 2016 • lAw Times www.lawtimesnews.com COMMENT ©2016 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or stored in a retrieval system without written per- mission. The opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the publisher. Information presented is compiled from sources believed to be accurate, however, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. Law Times disclaims any warranty as to the accuracy, com - pleteness or currency of the contents of this pub- lication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reliance upon information in this publication. Publications Mail Agreement Number 40762529 • ISSN 0847-5083 Law Times is published 40 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com CIRCULATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS $199.00 + HST per year in Canada for print and online (HST Reg. #R121351134), $199 + HST per year for online only. Single copies are $5.00. Circulation inquiries, postal returns and address changes should include a copy of the mailing label(s) and should be sent to Law Times One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd. Toronto ON, M1T 3V4. Return postage guaranteed. Contact Keith Fulford at ........... 416-649-9585 or fax: 416-649-7870 keith.fulford@thomsonreuters.com ADVERTISING Advertising inquiries and materials should be directed to Sales, Law Times, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON, M1T 3V4 or call: Kimberlee Pascoe ...............................416-649-8875 kimberlee.pascoe@thomsonreuters.com Grace So .............................................416-609-5838 grace.so@thomsonreuters.com Joseph Galea .......................................416-649-9919 joseph.galea@thomsonreuters.com Steffanie Munroe ................................416-298-5077 steffanie.munroe@thomsonreuters.com Director/Group Publisher . . . . . . . . . Karen Lorimer Editor in Chief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gail J. Cohen Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gabrielle Giroday Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yamri Taddese Copy Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patricia Cancilla CaseLaw Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adela Rodriguez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . & Jennifer Wright Art Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steve Maver Production Co-ordinator . . . . . . .Sharlane Burgess Electronic Production Specialist . . . Derek Welford Law Times Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON • M1T 3V4 • Tel: 416-298-5141 • Fax: 416-649-7870 www.lawtimesnews.com LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com • @lawtimes u EDITORIAL OBITER By Gabrielle Giroday Supreme Court boots cherished laws R ecently, in a shocking decision, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down two of former prime minister Stephen Harper's most cherished crime laws, declaring them unconstitutional and a violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Harper, wherever he may be, had to see it coming. Soon after he was elected, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced he would bring in massive changes to our criminal justice system. There is plenty more to come, the Liberals promise, probably enough to drive Harper and his people up the wall. Trudeau sent a public letter to his new justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, telling her to get ready to overhaul the entire criminal justice system that the Liberals had inherited from the previous Conservative government. Federal justice lawyers sprang into action, and so did the Supreme Court of Canada. On April 15, the Supreme Court tossed out two of Harper's most cher- ished crime laws he had shoved through Parliament in 2012. Call it "the Revenge of the Bench." Harper had made it clear during the past decade what he thought of the Su- preme Court of Canada — even the jus- tices he himself had appointed to the court. There was the C-10 Omnibus Bill, which tied the hands of judges when it came to sentencing, forcing them to impose mandatory minimum sentences for non- violent crimes. It infuriated lawyers and judges alike. Judges like to make up their own minds when it comes to sentencing. Some refused f lat out. Harper called his C-10 Omnibus Bill the Safe Streets and Communities Act. He promised it was to keep our streets safe, but then it also covered non-violent drug offenders. Was it thought up instead to please hardliners in the Conservative party in the lead-up to the next federal election? Judges thought they knew best what should be the length of sentences in indi- vidual cases, not some politician on Par- liament Hill who wasn't even a lawyer, let alone a judge. Some crown prosecu- tors deliberately reduced charges just so the judge would not have to hand down one of Harper's mandatory minimums, proving there is more than one way to skin a mandatory minimum cat. Defence lawyers were only too happy to go along with this kind of thinking. The Conservatives' mandatory mini- mum law said nothing about setting more lenient mandatory maximums, set- ting only tougher, meaner maximums. The Supreme Court ruling said that in many cases the Conserva- tives' mandatory minimums had gone too far, putting people in jail for offences that didn't rate the severity judges were forced to hand down. In one case, the Supreme Court ruled by six to three that the one-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for a non-violent drug possession by a gentleman, Joseph Ryan Lloyd from Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court ruled that he should do a year in jail for his 10 grams of heroin, crack, and cocaine. Wasn't that the same as a one-year mandatory minimum? A year is a year, you say. It wasn't his first offence. Oh yes, but it was a year decided by a judge, not by somebody on Parliament Hill. Judges like to judge. They like to think they know what they are doing. The same day, speaking to an audi- ence in Waterloo, Ont., Trudeau said his approach to justice is to protect the public while respecting the rights guaranteed to everyone under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For some serious crimes, such as murder, Trudeau said, there should be a mandatory minimum jail term. But then what about a single mom caught steal- ing diapers for her newborn in the drug- store? Should she go to jail while her kids end up at Children's Aid? Before Trudeau took over, the Con- servative majority set as many maximum minimum sentences it wanted. Now, 10 days ago, things are changing for the better. Judges are doing the judg- ing. They are deciding how to make the punishment fit the crime, maximum or not. In another case, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously — all nine justices — that an offender denied bail because of prior convictions should be able to re- ceive credit for time served in jail before sentencing. The Trudeau plan to overhaul our jus- tice system doesn't please everyone. New Democrat MP Guy Caron says Trudeau has been promising massive changes to the justice system very soon — in the next few weeks. "But he's been saying that for the past six months," adds Caron. Conservative deputy justice critic Michael Cooper doesn't like the new changes. He wants to go back to the good, old crime and punishment days under the previous government. LT uRichard Cleroux is a freelance reporter and columnist on Parlia- ment Hill. His e-mail address is richardcleroux34@gmail.com. The Hill Richard Cleroux Mind the Charter How embarrassing. Police entities across Ontario are under the micro- scope right now. ere is a heightened attention from the public and media to various police enforcement tactics, and a recent Court of Appeal ruling had some strong words for an Ontario officer who Justice Peter Lauwers said violated the Charter doing a vehicle search. In R. v. Harflett, a man driving down Highway 401 with Quebec plates was pulled over for driving with a suspended Ontario licence due to unpaid fines. Aer the traffic stop, and the arrest of the man for driving with the li - cence of another jurisdiction while his Ontario licence was suspended, On- tario Provincial Police Const. Robert Sinclair searched the man's car. e plan was to have the man's car towed to a nearby hotel, until the man could pay the fines and continue on his way. But, during the search, Sinclair came across a "large quantity" of marijuana in the car's trunk. ere begins the trouble. In his ruling, Lauwers overturned the man's drug conviction. He cites section 8 of the Charter, which says "that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure." "e state misconduct was serious and the impact on the appellant's Charter rights was significant," said Lauwers. e harsh words didn't stop there — and one hopes that Sinclair's super - visors at the OPP are reading closely. "I do not doubt that Constable Sinclair believes that he is doing the right thing, and to that extent shows good faith," wrote Lauwers. "As an instructor of other police officers, he ought to be fully conversant with his legal authority, but the evi- dence shows either that he was not or that he was pre- pared to search regardless. His attitude was exemplified by his testimony: he resisted the notion that what he did was a 'search.'. . . this was plainly a search." Vehicle stops, and vehicle searches, are a charged area. Highway 401 is a busy place. Lauwers' words are pretty clear. Mind the Charter, OPP. LT

• Cover