Access to Justice
-
August 06, 2024
Appeal court assesses dangerous offender designation
An accused person referred to as A.M. had no prior criminal record until he violently assaulted two different women on three separate occasions with escalating violence and brutality. He was convicted of two sexual assaults, two common assaults, assault with a weapon, breaking and entering a dwelling house, intent to overcome resistance by choking, sexual assault causing bodily harm, uttering a threat, assault on a peace officer and possession of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking.
-
August 02, 2024
Murder conviction upheld amid witness concerns
After deliberating for four days in 2019, a St. Catharines, Ont., jury found Michael Joseph William Ball, 32, guilty of first-degree murder. His trial had been moved from Kitchener when a jury there could not reach a verdict on the murder charge, although they were willing to convict him of committing an indignity to a human body.
-
August 02, 2024
NWT wants input on planned health and social service changes
In a bid to provide “clear guidelines for both practitioners and patients,” the Northwest Territories (NWT) is seeking feedback on proposed changes to legislation that would place health and social service professionals under one regulatory framework and strengthen rules governing oversight.
-
August 02, 2024
Is the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program a sham? | Jasmine Daya
The vaccine rollout was eagerly anticipated by Canadians who were seeking a return to some form of normalcy following lockdowns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic that commenced in March 2020. There is no doubt that the effects of the pandemic will be felt for years to come, but the extent to which they will be felt is still unknown.
-
August 01, 2024
Esther’s legal odyssey: A call for accessible justice | Alexandar Pavlov
African Muslim women in Canada often face unique legal dilemmas, especially when involved in common-law relationships.
-
August 01, 2024
Courts must cast an ‘eye to fairness’ in cases involving mental illness: legal mind
While courts are not “caretakers” for those with mental illness, they must still make sure “procedures are applied sensitively, contextually and with an eye to fairness,” says a legal mind after Nova Scotia’s highest court took the rare step of reopening the appeal of a man with schizophrenia who had shut it down.
-
August 01, 2024
Political dangers of confirmation bias | John L. Hill
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions. In today’s politically polarized climate, confirmation bias often leads us to oversimplify complex situations. I was recently criticized by my local member of provincial parliament (who also happens to be a cabinet minister) for taking him up on his Facebook posting that said the blame for injury experienced by a community member caused by a person out on bail should rest entirely with the federal government.
-
July 31, 2024
Federal political parties collecting sensitive voter data in a regulatory void, warns report
In a British Columbia courtroom this past May, the country’s three main political parties came together in common cause: to maintain unregulated access to sometimes sensitive voter information collected by a mushrooming industry of political consultants.
-
July 31, 2024
Attention Premier Ford: Call me | Norman Douglas
Dear Premier Ford: I think your heart is in the right place. I think maybe your head is not. Who is giving you their advice on the judicial system? I’m guessing it doesn’t include any judges or justices of the peace. What “you are hearing on the street” must be the voices of folks who read headlines and have never sat through one day in an Ontario courtroom.
-
July 31, 2024
Parliamentary liability for Charter infringing laws | Catherine Latimer
The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. Power, [2024] S.C.J. No. 26, once again showed that it would “act as vigilant guardians of constitutional rights and the rule of law.” Chipping away at dated concepts of Parliamentary inviolability, the court found that there was no absolute Crown immunity for damages when the government enacts legislation violating Charter rights. In this case, Joseph Power suffered damages by the retroactive application of unconstitutional restrictions on relief under the Criminal Records Act.