Category Archives: Criminal

Police Record Checks in Alberta

By: Jennifer Taylor

PDF Version: Police Record Checks in Alberta

Paper Commented On: Alberta Law Reform Institute, Police Record Checks: Preliminary Research (March 2020)

The Alberta Law Reform Institute (ALRI) recently published a paper on police record checks. The paper:

    • examines the provincial and federal statutes that partially regulate the disclosure of information in police record check results;
    • reviews the provincial and national calls that have been made for specific legislation to regulate police record checks;
    • evaluates Ontario’s Police Record Checks Reform Act, 2015, SO 2015, c 30 (Ontario Act); and
    • compares the Ontario Act with the Alberta Police Information Check Disclosure Procedures (Alberta Procedures) endorsed by the Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police (AACP).

Continue reading →

Being in the Moment: An Analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in R v Chung

By: Lisa Silver

PDF Version: Being in the Moment: An Analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in R v Chung

Case Commented On: R v Chung, 2020 SCC 8 (Can LII)

Mindfulness, according to Jon Kabat-Zinn, the founder of MBSR (mindfulness-based stress reduction), is “the psychological process of bringing one’s attention to the internal and external experiences occurring in the present moment, which can be developed through the practice of meditation and other training.” Leaving aside how one can develop mindfulness, this concept of being “in the moment” has received much attention of late. Mindfulness is everywhere. It focuses on how we can bring more awareness to those reflexive and automatic activities we do throughout the day. This emotional and physical awareness allows us to better control the reactions we have to the stressors of life. Mindfulness also has a place in the legal world as seen in the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v Chung, 2020 SCC 8 (Can LII). In that case, the Court, in essence, applies the process of mindfulness to the two issues under consideration; whether the Crown appeal against an acquittal raises a question of law and if so, whether the trial judge erred in applying the incorrect legal test required in assessing the objective mens rea of dangerous driving. Continue reading →

Alberta Court of Appeal Restores Access to Habeas Corpus

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Alberta Court of Appeal Restores Access to Habeas Corpus

Case Commented On: Wilcox v Alberta, 2020 ABCA 104 (CanLII) (Wilcox CA)

This Court of Appeal decision is significant for a number of reasons. Most importantly, the decision means that accused individuals in pre-trial solitary confinement in Alberta now have access to habeas corpus, the fastest way to challenge the legality of that confinement. So too do prisoners held in solitary confinement from the very beginning of their sentence. It is also significant because it criticizes the approach taken by the Court of Queen’s Bench to recent habeas corpus applications, including that of Mr. Wilcox. The appellate court found that the lower courts misunderstood precedents, cited cases for rules those cases did not support, ignored a 1985 Supreme Court of Canada decision, relied upon a case that had been overturned, found that an issue was not pled when it was, came to unreasonable conclusions, and made an unwarranted threat of personal costs against Mr. Wilcox’s counsel. In addition, the Court of Appeal clarified which habeas corpus pleadings are vexatious and abusive and which are not. It also vindicated the work of the Alberta Prison Justice Society and many of the individual prisoners’ rights lawyers in that group. Continue reading →

What is the Threshold for Entrapment?

By: Kenryo Mizutani

PDF Version: What is the Threshold for Entrapment?

Case Commented On: R v Turgeon-Myers, 2019 ABQB 493

In the heist film “Entrapment,” Mac, a professional thief (played by Sean Connery), says, “I don’t like surprises.” Gin, an undercover agent pretending to be a thief herself (played by Catherine Zeta-Jones), replies: “Trust me, there won’t be any.” Mac then replies: “Trust me, there always are surprises.” And there always are surprises.

At first glance, R v Turgeon-Myers, 2019 ABQB 493, may seem like a case about entrapment. Yet upon closer examination, a careful reader may be surprised to learn that there is an evidentiary issue beneath the issue of entrapment. Similar to my earlier blog article about the informant privilege, Turgeon-Myers involved a police informant. This informant provided the police with information about drug trafficking, and the police subsequently conducted an undercover operation to make an arrest. The accused, while initially admitting guilt, applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment. Continue reading →

Does the Criminal Law Have the Capacity to Respond to the Intoxicated Automaton?

By: Lisa Silver

PDF Version: Does the Criminal Law Have the Capacity to Respond to the Intoxicated Automaton?

Case Commented On: R v Brown, 220 ABQB 166

I am at the point in my 1L criminal law class where we start talking about capacity issues, namely whether a person by virtue of mental disorder, automatism and/or intoxication has the capacity to commit a criminal offence. This is a complex and controversial area of the law. In discussing these issues, we criss-cross across the lines between legal, medical and policy concerns. We wade through case law stretching back decades that sometimes fundamentally change the common law and at other times hold strictly to it. Although each capacity issue involves detailed legal tests, when these issues arise together, the legal directions become overly complex and downright confusing. This “perfect storm” of capacity issues arise in the recent decision of R v Brown, 220 ABQB 166, challenging our legal conception of capacity and leaving us wondering whether the criminal law has the capacity to adequately respond. Continue reading →