The Canadian Bar Association Was An Appropriate Intervener

The Canadian criminal justice system is often represented by the balanced scales of justice. These scales symbolize the need for the law to be viewed objectively in order to ensure a fair determination of innocence. Ideally, the criminal justice system should incorporate the values of the scales of justice to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate the law (Jordan, 2014). When dealing with crime, this system mainly uses methods of retributive justice in order to achieve its goals. However, despite justice being supposedly impartial, there is an overwhelming amount of injustice in all stages of the criminal justice process, from the charging of the individuals in court to their sentence in prison (Jordan, 2014). To combat this

This paper will be focusing on the controversial issue of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada. There has been much debate over this topic, as it has quickly become implemented for the sentencing of drug offenders, drug-related crimes and banned firearm offences. I will argue that every case that comes through the criminal justice system is different and deserves a fair trial with a sentence that is not already determined for them. There have been many cases where the judge has no discretion in the sentence due to the mandatory minimum sentences pre-determined for the case, no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors were. I will argue that the mandatory minimum sentences in Canada should be reduced or eliminated as

n response to the criticisms of those who are anti-judicial activism, “supporters of judicial activism say such activism through judicial review is necessary because it allows the courts to step in and fill gaps in the law where minorities are not protected because of political pressures and where politicians are afraid to legislate” . This raises the argument that judges and the judiciary play a balanced activist legislative role in such a way that it protects the rights of minorities from legislation or regulation imposed by the government. Within our democratic system, legislators will pay attention to what the majority wants and they will pursue public policies, which favour the majority. This leaves minority interests vulnerable to the legislations and regulations imposed by the government. By playing an active role, the judiciary ensures that the rights of the minorities are protected and that law does not contravene with the Charter of Human Rights and the Constitution of Canada. Through this kind of judicial activism, the courts strike a balance with the legislatures role. This is not to say that the judiciary takes on the role of policymaking and the legislature, but rather that both institutions embrace what is referred to as a “dialogue” where there is a balance between judicial decision-making and legislative-executive decision making . However, according to MacKay, “it is legitimate for the courts to engage in a form of judicial policy making so long as they do

The courts found that If section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada infringes or denies the rights and freedoms guaranteed by ss. 2(a), 7, 12, 15, 27 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is s. 251 justified by s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and therefore not inconsistent with the Constitution Act, 1982?

Robin Blencoe was a minister of the British Columbia government who was accused of sexually harassing his assistant, Fran Yanor in March 1995. In the Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission case) h became the respondent in the case. Once he was accused, Blencoe stepped down from his position and a month later he was removed from his cabinet by the premier. Along with this, he was dismissed from the NDP caucus. Four to five months later, Blencoe was yet again faced with two complaints of “discrimination conduct in the form of sexual harassment” (Westcoastleaf, page.2) by two other women who were employees of Blencoe named Andrea Willis and Irene Schell. There were various incidents that took place in between March 1993 and March

There has been unrelenting controversy over the years concerning the constitutionality of matters such as mandatory minimum sentences and three strikes laws, life without parole for juvenile offenders and capital punishment. Mandatory minimum sentences began in 1951 when Congress passed the Boggs Act, allowing for tough mandatory

3. Seeing that the dispute involved the sale of land, specific performance is the proper award for damages to the injured party.

Case 9 deals with a homeowner (the principle) who lists her property for sale and enters into an agreement with an agent to facilitate a sale with a third party. Over the course of the agency agreement a prospective buyer inspected the property but didn’t make an offer before the agency agreement expired. The legal issue that arises comes after the agency agreement expires. The prospective buyer later decided to put in an offer, which was accepted, but once discovering that the agreement between the principle and agent had expired brought legal action against the agent.

The Canadian Criminal Justice System is, for the most part, reflective of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and various Supreme Court of Canada case-law. Everyone who finds themselves on the opposing end of the Criminal Justice System is entitled to certain protections every step of the way, beginning even before the arrest; laws protect us from unreasonable investigative techniques, guarantee certain rights at point of arrest, and provide us with the right to counsel. The bail court departs from the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard in that the crown only needs to prove on a balance of probabilities (Kellough, 1996, p. 175) in order to take away a person’s freedom. It is for this reason I decided to limit the scope of my

In the article “Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: A Failed Policy,” the author highlights how mandatory minimum sentencing is a policy that has failed in attempt to put an end to drug crimes. Batey stated that the attempts of federal and state thought that they could “get tough on crime,” particularly drug offense, by eliminating the sentence discretion of judges and restoring it with long minimum sentences that applied regardless of defendant's individual circumstances (Batey 24). Moreover, the mandatory minimum sentences take authority away from the judge and give it to the prosecutor, who decides whether to charge the defendant with a crime carrying a long minimum sentence or much less offense. Withal, mandatory minimum sentences have failed due to giving America’s power too much power in plea bargaining, an imbalance that has led to the incarceration of persons too fearful to insist on a hearing that might have released them (Batey 25). Finally, Batey mentions that mandatory minimum sentence policy has filled prisons with the wrong people, which are minor players, not drug kingpins, and even some who are innocent (Batey 25).

22, 2010, when the government banned the double credit, Kevin Page, the former Parliamentary Budget Officer, predicted that the new approach would cost the federal and provincial governments as much as $5-billion a year by 2015-16. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General Nicholson’s statement on Second Reading of Bill C-25, or the Truth in Sentencing Act, criticizes judicial competency in our criminal courts. He uses the phrase, “generous credit for pre-sentence custody” four times, and links it to, “eroding public confidence in the integrity of the justice system.” That means that the judges, collectively, have been eroding public confidence in the justice

In 1994 Mr. Latimer was found guilty of second-degree murder of his daughter Tracy Latimer, a 12-year-old girl who had a severe form of cerebral palsy. On a leave to appeal from the Superior Court of Canada (SCC), Mr. Latimer’s imposition of mandatory minimum sentence for second-degree murder constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" in this case, so the accused should receive a constitutional exemption from minimum sentences under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. During the second trial, the defence counsel asked the trial judge for a ruling, in advance of his closing submissions, on whether the jury could consider a defence of necessity. Whether the jury should have been allowed to consider a defence of necessity. The trial judge told counsel that he would rule on necessity after the closing submissions, and later ruled that the defence was not available. Whether the timing of trial judge's ruling as to the availability of the defence rendered accused's trial unfair.

Historically, the Criminal Code provided judges with broad discretion in sentencing matters, however, mandatory minimum sentences is very much the exception to the rule. Kent Roach has characterized the post-Smith Supreme Court decisions upholding mandatory minimum sentences as moving from “activism” to “minimalism” in interpreting and applying section 12. He recognizes that judges are more engaged in interpreting cases prior to the establishment of a minimum floor of sentencing with respect to certain offences. In addition, Smith has been called the watermark for section 12-jurisprudence. However, in the twenty-five years following Smith, the Court’s section 12-analysis has been gradually restricted as a tool for challenging mandatory minimums. As Ryan Newel eloquently describes, “the potency of section 12 has been diluted considerably as the Court has limited the use of hypothetical circumstances in which the imposition of a

Each year in America many people received prison sentences for crimes that pose little if any danger or harm to our society. Mandatory Minimum Sentencing in the American Justice System has long been argued by both Lawmakers and the public. We will go over some of the history of mandatory minimum sentences as well as the many pros and cons to these types of sentences. Some examples of pros and cons are the overall effect on public safety, the effect on the offenders, the cost to taxpayers, the lack of discretion for Judge’s, and whether the law should be repealed.

This essay will explore the changes that Article 263 TFEU has had to the accessibility of judicial review before the CJEU as well as assessing whether the reforms introduced were sufficient enough in improving a private parties ability to bring government decisions under scrutiny. In addition, the judgments of the Court in Inuit and Microban will be considered. This essay will analyse present criticisms of the definition set out in the two cases and the overall effect of the new article.