Author Archives: Elliot Holzman

About Elliot Holzman

Elliot Holzman is a 2017 Juris Doctor candidate at the University of Calgary. Elliot is the Student Director at Student Legal Assistance (SLA), a non-profit legal clinic that provides legal information to marginalized and disadvantaged Calgarians. During his time with SLA, Elliot has run numerous criminal trials in the Provincial Court of Alberta.

When the Courts Close One Door, They May Open Many More: Maintenance Logs and the Potential Implications of an Appeal in R v Vallentgoed

By: Elliot Holzman

PDF Version: When the Courts Close One Door, They May Open Many More: Maintenance Logs and the Potential Implications of an Appeal in R v Vallentgoed

Case Commented On: R v Vallentgoed, 2016 ABCA 358 (CanLII)

Following the recent Alberta Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Vallentgoed, 2016 ABCA 358 (CanLII), it appears that Canada’s impaired driving laws may be before the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) once again – this time, only four years removed from the last major case to be decided by the SCC in this area: see R. v. St-Onge Lamoureux, 2012 SCC 57, (CanLII).

Vallentgoed featured two separate cases that were tried together as “test” cases: both Mr. Vallentgoed and Mr. Gubbins were charged with impaired driving and requested various maintenance records as part of their disclosure requests from the Crown. The question before the Court on both appeals pertained to the Crown disclosure obligations of certain maintenance records for the breathalyzer instruments (also called “approved instruments”) used every day in impaired driving investigations across the country.

In a split 2-1 decision, with Justice Rowbotham dissenting, the Court of Appeal held that while time-of-test records of the approved instruments are clearly relevant and must be disclosed to an accused person, historical maintenance records of the instruments are not subject to the same disclosure obligations. Justice Rowbotham found that an instrument’s maintenance log (which is a summary of all the work/repairs done on an instrument since it was brought into use) constitutes first party disclosure and must be disclosed as part of the standard disclosure package sent by the Crown. The majority (Justices Slatter and Berger) held it was third party disclosure, and not subject to the Crown’s Stinchcombe disclosure obligations (see R. v Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326, 1991 CanLII 45 (SCC)). As the Court of Appeal was split in its decision, there will be an appeal as of right to the SCC, should the appellant wish to exercise that right. Continue reading →

Anti-Terrorism Law Reform: Required Changes to the Terrorism Financing Provisions

By: Hayleigh Cudmore, Elliot Holzman, Andrea Mannell, and Sarah Miller

PDF Version: Anti-Terrorism Law Reform: Required Changes to the Terrorism Financing Provisions

Provisions Commented on: Sections 83.02, 83.03 and 83.04, Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46

Editor’s Note: This is the third in a series of three posts on Reviewing Canada’s National Security Framework.

This law reform proposal is focused on the “Financing of Terrorism” provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985, c C-46. The government is currently engaged in public consultations and substantive review of the controversial aspects of Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015. The purpose of this post is to consider the structural problems within the Criminal Code and the current anti-terrorism financing regime, discuss the apparent shortcomings in bringing prosecutions under this regime and provide recommendations to improve the efficacy of these provisions.

The particular provisions of the Criminal Code which prohibit terrorism financing – sections 83.02, 83.03 and 83.04 – were neither enacted nor varied by Bill C-51. These provisions came into force as part of the Anti-terrorism Act, SC 2001, c 41, in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the following UN Resolution 1373 on the financing of terrorist acts. Despite the fact that the provisions are not anchored to Bill C-51, it is still a good opportunity to revisit these provisions and restructure this part of the Code. Continue reading →

Terrorism and Entrapment in the Era of Increased Scrutiny of Police

By: Elliot Holzman

PDF Version: Terrorism and Entrapment in the Era of Increased Scrutiny of Police

Case Commented On: R v Nuttall, 2016 BCSC 1404 (CanLII)

On July 1, 2013, John Nuttall and Amanda Korody placed three pressure cooker bombs in the bushes next to the British Columbia Parliament Buildings (“the Legislature”) in Victoria, B.C. The contents of the explosive devices included nuts, bolts, nails, washers and other materials intended to kill or maim people. Luckily, the bombs never detonated. It became public knowledge immediately after the incident that the devices were inert and were manipulated by the RCMP before Nuttall and Korody got their hands on them. The RCMP clarified that while the threat was real the public was never at risk as the threat was detected early and disrupted.

The initial reports indicated that Nuttall and Korody were a couple living in Surrey in the Lower Mainland and were converts to Islam who were self-radicalized. Over the following weeks, more details began to emerge about an elaborate RCMP and CSIS led investigation – Project Souvenir – that had been involved with Nuttall and Korody in the months, weeks, days, and hours leading up to the bombs being planted.

On June 2, 2015, Nuttall and Korody were convicted by a jury of a number of terrorism offences, but their convictions were not entered as they immediately applied for a stay of proceedings based on the conduct of the RCMP during its undercover investigation. This is known as entrapment. As I will describe below, entrapment occurs when someone is induced to commit a criminal offence as a result of unfair law enforcement practices such as trickery, persuasion or fraud. Continue reading →

Physician-Assisted Dying Once Again Before the Supreme Court: What Just Happened?

By: Elliot Holzman

PDF Version: Physician-Assisted Dying Once Again Before the Supreme Court: What Just Happened?

Case Commented On: Carter v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 SCC 4

On February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its much-anticipated decision in Carter v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5 (Carter I), a landmark ruling where the criminal prohibition on physician-assisted dying was declared unconstitutional. Professor Jennifer Koshan wrote here about Carter I. In that decision, the Court did not immediately invalidate the relevant sections of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, rather the declaration of invalidity was suspended by one year, set to expire on February 6, 2016. Since February 6, a confluence of factors, including: Parliament not acting with much hurry on crafting new legislation to respond to Carter I, a historically long federal election that resulted in a change of government, and the four-month dissolution of Parliament, resulted in the Court once again hearing oral arguments in the case – this time an application by the Attorney General of Canada to extend the suspension of invalidity by another 6 months (see Carter v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 SCC 4 (Carter II)).

In Carter II, the Court had to grapple with new issues since the Carter I decision – Quebec’s National Assembly enacted its own legislation permitting physician assisted suicide – and the Court heard oral arguments from the Attorney General of Quebec seeking an exemption from the proposed extension. The Court granted the Attorney General of Canada a four-month extension, Quebec was given the green light to implement its legislation, and in the four-month window, individual patients can apply to the courts for a constitutional exemption to the suspension of invalidity. This comment will first look at the remedy the Court crafted in Carter I, and then move on to its decision in Carter II.

Continue reading →

Impaired Driving and Approved Screening Devices

By: Shaun Fluker, Elliot Holzman, and Ian Pillai

PDF Version: Impaired Driving and Approved Screening Devices

Case Commented On: Goodwin v British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2015 SCC 46; Wilson v British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2015 SCC 47

In October the Supreme Court of Canada issued two companion judgments concerning the constitutionality and meaning of the Automatic Roadside Prohibition (ARP) provisions set out in the Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996, c 318. In Goodwin v British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) the Supreme Court upheld British Columbia’s ARP scheme as valid provincial law that does not unlawfully invade federal criminal law power or contravene section 11 of the Charter, but the Court also ruled that the seizure of a breath sample using an approved screening device (ASD) under the scheme as previously administered was an unreasonable seizure under section 8 of the Charter. In ruling as such, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Chambers Justice who heard the matters back in 2010. Subsequent to that initial ruling the Province of British Columbia amended the ARP scheme in an attempt to remedy the unreasonable seizure, and the Supreme Court’s companion judgment in Wilson v British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) concerns the interpretation of these new provisions employing principles of statutory interpretation. In this comment we provide an overview of the ARP scheme and the issues raised by the use of ASDs in impaired driving cases, and bring this matter into an Alberta context. We also examine the Supreme Court’s constitutional analysis in Goodwin and its application of the principles of statutory interpretation in Wilson.