This is the first time that I’m hearing this somehow extends ordinary police emergency powers [to telecommunications]. In my opinion, it doesn’t. And it shouldn’t.

The bill, however, has already went to  first reading and is moving towards the committee stage.  Some folks online have asked how Toews could be expressing surprise over aspects of his very own bill.

The bill has seen two interesting (one humorous, the second arguably vicious) responses towards Toews.  First there is the #TellVicEverything hashtag on Twitter.  The basic idea is that Tweeters write something personal with the idea that Toews should know about the most intricate details of their lives.

Second there’s the Twitter account that has been set-up called Vikileaks.  Here the anonymous Tweeter is sharing personal details about Toews himself (clearly as a means of protesting the bill).  The sharing of Toews’ information has a starking similarity to a project done by a Fordham University Law School class in 2009.  In response to comments made by United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia questioning the need for protection of private information, law professor Joel Reidenberg asked his class to find information about Scalia himself.  The class was able to gather details about Scalia including his home address, phone number, movie preferences, his wife’s email address, as well as family pictures.  While not amused with the professor’s “poor judgment”, Scalia still referred to the sharing of this information as being “perfectly legal”.

For a more thorough account of Reidenberg’s assignment on Scalia, click here.

This blog post was written by Toronto Criminal Lawyer Adam Goodman.  Adam can be reached at 416-477-6793 or by email at adam@aglaw.ca.

When an individual is released after arrest or placed on probation the court will impose conditions on them.  The actus reus of a breach involves non-compliance with one or more of these conditions.  Release conditions may include non-contact with the complainant or any other parties the court deems appropriate (contact includes any contact including electronic contract such as text or Facebook messages), a boundary restriction, a curfew or house arrest, a requirement to seek counseling, etc.  A probation order may contain conditions similar to a release order in addition to two statutory conditions to keep the peace and be of good behaviour (this condition may also be present on a release order although its appropriateness is a matter for debate) and to report to the court when required to do so.

The seriousness of a breach allegation, like any criminal offence, depends on the circumstances surrounding its commission.  For example, a court may view a breach of a non-contact order much more seriously than a curfew breach (of course this would depend on the nature of the curfew breach) as such a breach could suggest a threat to the safety of the complainant.

Most breach allegations would not normally be criminal offences but-for the court order.  The main exception to this is the term to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.  Generally speaking a charge for breaching this term will be laid if an individual is arrested for a new criminal offence (although I suppose an argument could be made that one could not have committed an actual criminal offence but still not be keeping the peace and being of good behaviour; for example they may have contravened another Act or simply be behaving inappropriately but still not committing a criminal act) as the new criminal behaviour would put them in contravention of the condition.  Another example is where there is a term to not be in possession of any illegal drugs and the individual is found in possession of an illegal drug and is subsequently charged with a breach and an offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Courts take breaches of their orders very seriously.  This makes sense as court orders need to have an element of enforceability to them; if breaches weren’t criminal offences then there would arguably be little reason to follow the terms of a court order.  Having even one breach on one’s criminal record may also make it difficult for them to be granted bail in the future as they now have a history of non-compliance with court orders.  It is for this reason that individuals charged with a breach should be reluctant to plead guilty to the charge.  These charges can often be hard to prove and, in many cases, the potential consequences of being successful at trial may not differ greatly from pleading guilty.

Part 2 of this discussion will focus on what the Crown needs to prove for an individual to be found guilty of a breach.

This blog post was written by lawyer Adam Goodman.  Adam is a criminal lawyer in Toronto who blogs regularly about legal subjects.  Adam can be reached at 416-477-6793 or by email at adam@aglaw.ca.

The one issue with these discounts is that they tend to favour those practicing in larger firms and those working in larger centers.  With the assistance of the Criminal Lawyer’s Association Listserv I have had no problem putting groups of people together.  Without this resource, however, it would have been much harder.  Additionally it can become a fair amount of work to gather people’s sign-up information and collect money.  Larger firms have the support resources available to get this work done, not to mention many lawyers who may be interested in attending the program.

When I put together a group for the solo and small firm expo a few of those who signed-up pointed out the irony.  The expo is meant to focus on those practicing as solo-practitioners or in small firms but the law society was providing a discount to those who signed-up in larger groups.

When push comes to shove, however, I don’t really mind putting the groups together.  I like getting the air miles.

This blog post was written by Toronto Criminal Lawyer Adam Goodman.  Adam can be reached at 416-477-6793 or by email at adam@aglaw.ca.

Justice Oleskiw provided six tips (I have added in my own commentary as well):

1. Introducing yourself builds credibility. A Judge who is referring to you as counsel probably doesn’t know your name so it would be best to mention it at that point.  Although in court I will be called Mr. Goodman I personally like to introduce myself using my first name.  It just seems much more personable to say “Good morning Your Honour it’s Adam Goodman for Mr./Ms. [client's name]” as opposed to the more formal “Goodman, initial A”.

2.  Provide help to the Judge if asked to do so. It is quite possible a Judge may be unfamiliar with an area of the law or case you are speaking about.  By educating the Judge you will be assisting in the decision making process.  More is better than less.  I would also note that you should be correct and not misstate the law and if their is conflict on a point be sure and point that out to the Judge.

3.  Be on time for court.  If you happen to be late, apologize.

4.  Be accurate with the evidence. Do not state something with confidence unless you are 100% certain.  In cases where you are uncertain then say that and defer to the Judge’s recollection.  I have no doubt that even one error in stating the evidence will make you much less credible.  It can be very difficult to take notes during a trial, especially while conducting a cross-examination, so I can’t see many Judges being upset if you do not exactly recall an evidentiary point as long as you are honest about it.

5.  Be civil with everyone in the courtroom and do not demean others. While I try and get along with everyone there will be times when I don’t see eye to eye with another party, particularly a Crown Attorney.  It is important to never let this difference of opinion become personal and for the Judge to see this.  I would note that this civility rule must also apply to all court staff.

6.  Formulate a vision of what the judgment should look like and be sure to address the strengths and weaknesses of your argument.
Becoming a good courtroom advocate is not an easy feat and can take years and years of practice.  The tips above are quite obvious yet are ones that many lawyers (in fact I would say most lawyers) will often forget.  Hearing them come directly from a Judge really drove the point home about how important these small and simple things can be in making a competent and effective courtroom presentation.

Do you have any tips for appearing before Judges (either new or with many years experience)?

This blog post was written by Toronto Criminal Lawyer Adam Goodman.  Adam can be reached at 416-477-6793 or by email at adam@aglaw.ca.

Many of the JOT initiatives I have seen in GTA courthouses have been good ones, although it would be nice if there was some uniformity while still keeping in mind that different things may work in different courthouses.  In my mind, however, JOT does not address the key issue in that there are a lot of charges in Ontario courtrooms that just don’t need to be there.

In  British Columbia there is a system in place whereby the Crown will approve of charges before they are laid.  In Ontario the police will lay a charge (in fairness they may consult with the Crown on more serious matters) and the file often will not get to a Crown Attorney’s desk until around the time of the first court appearance.  Instead, why not have the police consult with a Crown and avoid the need for certain charges in the first place?

The other reality is that many charges go to trial that could be resolved by way of some form of alternative measures.  The problem is that the Crown only offers alternative measures in the most minor of cases.  If such an offer is not on the table then in many cases there isn’t much to lose by taking a case to trial.  By doing this the accused person may be able to avoid a finding of guilt and criminal record.  Instead, some sort of alternative measures program can be arranged that is able to provide a meaningful sanction to the charged person without having to go through an actual trial and the time and expense that goes with it.

This blog post was written by Toronto Criminal Lawyer Adam Goodman.  Adam can be reached at 416-477-6793 or by email at adam@aglaw.ca.

Presentation topics spanned both substantive areas of law and useful tips in practice.  They included such things as sentencing submissions under the YCJA (Justice Miriam Bloomenfeld), how to effectively use judicial pre-trial conferences in the Superior Court of Justice (Justice Michelle Fuerst), arguing or opposing Khan and KGB applications (Justice Mara Greene), the restraint principal in sentencing (Justice Melvyn Green), guilty plea instructions and the legal requirements to strike a guilty plea (Justice John McMahon), dealing with mandatory minimum sentences (Justice Renee Pomerance), preparing for a bail hearing (Justice Faith Finnestad), appearing before a new Judge (Justice Dianne Oleskiw), conditional sentence breach hearings (Justice Shaun Nakatsuru), credit for pre-trial custody (Justice Paul Taylor).  By the end of the program 22 Judges had spoken on various topics.

The six-minute format is definitely a nice way to learn.  It forces the presenters to be brief and get to the point (something many of the Judges joked about) and also recognizes that one can only pay attention to any speaker for a limited amount of time before losing focus.   I now have a basic overview of a number of different topics that may come up in my day to day practice (obviously when they do come up I will do more thorough research into the relevant issues).  I expect this will be very useful.

This blog post was written by lawyer Adam Goodman.  Adam is a criminal lawyer in Toronto who blogs regularly about legal subjects.  Adam can be reached at 416-477-6793 or by email at adam@aglaw.ca.

I spoke about my concerns from a constitutional perspective.  I explained that offenders who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment still retain their constitutional rights (subject to reasonable limits) and that it could become a problem for governments (either federal or provincial) to expect private companies to protect these rights on their behalf.  (The Charter only applies to one’s relationship with government, however my interpretation is that this requirement should extend to these, albeit hypothetical, corporations who would be providing a service on behalf of government.  If there are any constitutional scholars who disagree then please post your thoughts as a comment.)

The other issue is that it would be in the best interest of a private company to keep people in prison longer as it would make them more money.  While I’m sure the role of the National Parole Board (who determine whether a federally sentenced offender should be released) would not be privately contracted, any prison company could affect factors that assist an individual in receiving parole such as their participation in programs and prison disciplinary record.

Personally I see private prisons as a bad idea and something that just cannot work within the Canadian legal system and method of corrections.  As the Lawyer’s Weekly story explained, there was an attempt at a private jail in Ontario in 2001.  The 1200 inmate jail closed five years later amid numerous concerns.  Hopefully this was a lesson well learned.

This blog post was written by Toronto Criminal Lawyer Adam Goodman.  Adam can be reached at 416-477-6793 or by email at adam@aglaw.ca.

Seven years later, in what was clearly a very emotional moment back in a Brampton courtroom, Maxwell Beech appeared again in front of Atwood, however this time he was not facing any criminal charges but instead thanking His Honour for giving him this second chance.

For reasons that defy logic, the Conservative government is ignoring clear warning signs and moving ahead with their crime policy.  This policy will impose mandatory minimum sentences on numerous offences which would effectively take sentencing discretion away from Judges in many cases.  Had their been a mandatory minimum sentence for the charges Beech faced then Atwood’s sentencing hands would have been tied, and perhaps Beech’s story would have turned out vastly different than the one that was told in court yesterday.

I am of course aware that not every person found guilty of a criminal offence turns their life around like Beech has.  Many do end up becoming recidivists.  That said, there is still no evidence to even suggest that harsher punishment actually succeeds in reducing crime.

If anything, the billions of dollars that the crime bill will likely cost the taxpayers would be much better served being put into social and counseling programs that will actually help in reducing the crime rate.

This blog post was written by lawyer Adam Goodman.  Adam is a criminal lawyer in Toronto who blogs regularly about legal subjects.  Adam can be reached at 416-477-6793 or by email at adam@aglaw.ca.

I am somewhat surprised that the Crown proceeded on the riot charge as opposed to a charge such as mischief, however I obviously do not have all the facts so will reserve comment until more information is available.

CTV also reported on the plea here.  The CTV story also reports on another individual entering a plea to possession of stolen property who received an absolute discharge.

This blog post was written by lawyer Adam Goodman.  Adam is a criminal lawyer in Toronto who blogs regularly about legal subjects.  Adam can be reached at 416-477-6793 or by email at adam@aglaw.ca.

That same evening the NHL “rescinded” the penalty.  While I’m sure Lucic was glad that he was vindicated for doing nothing wrong, the fact of the matter is he was thrown-out of the game.  The vindication is really a bit late.

The full story can be found here.

I found some interesting parallels in this sports story to the criminal justice system.  It happens all too often where an accused person is vindicated, either by way of acquittal or on appeal, but only after they have basically served their sentence.  The most classic example is when someone has been denied bail and finds themselves being found not guilty but only after waiting several months in custody for their trial.

This blog post was written by lawyer Adam Goodman.  Adam is a criminal lawyer in Toronto who blogs regularly about legal subjects.  Adam can be reached at 416-477-6793 or by email at adam@aglaw.ca.