Flex Legal Network
  • How We Help
    • Our Services >
      • Examples of Projects
    • Our Fees
    • Our Story & Our Founder
  • Who We Help
  • FAQs
  • Our Team
  • Hire Us
  • Join Us
  • Blog
    • Articles & Publications
    • Speaking Engagements & Presentations

Living in Transitional Times: R. v. Picard

10/2/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Heather Cross

“May you live in transitional times” could be the modern criminal defence bar’s equivalent of the ancient Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.” 

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. Picard illustrates the level of uncertainty that exists and will continue to exist in the criminal justice system while the “transitional exceptional circumstances” set out in R. v. Jordan remain in play.  Jordan was a Supreme Court of Canada decision released last summer that reworked the framework for determining Charter applications for stays of criminal charges based on unreasonable delay.

Under the transitional regime, courts dealing with cases that were in the system prior to the release of Jordan have to apply both Jordan and Morin, the leading case prior to Jordan. If the court determines that it was reasonable for the Crown to have relied upon the law as it existed under Morin in regard to the delay in question, the delay will not count against the Crown.

Picard was a case that got caught between Morin and Jordan. While the trial judge dismissed the first-degree murder charge against Mr. Picard on the basis of unreasonable delay, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the decision, finding that the trial judge erred in her application of Jordan’s “transitional exceptional circumstances.” While conceding that the charges would have been stayed under Jordan, the Court of Appeal found they would not have been stayed under Morin, and it was reasonable for the Crown to have relied on Morin.

Incarcerated for nearly four years, released for nearly nine months after the charges were stayed, re-incarcerated after the Court of Appeal decision and now facing a trial set for April 2018, it has been a long road for Mr. Picard. 

However, the general public likely has little sympathy for this “accused killer”, as he is referred to in the media. It is amazing what a difference the type of crime involved makes to people’s attitudes. When I was working on the Supreme Court of Canada case of R. v. Cody, most people immediately wanted to know what charges Mr. Cody was facing. After they discovered that Mr. Cody had been charged with relatively low-level drug dealing, they were ready to at least entertain the argument that the charges against him should be dismissed due to delay. However, their attitude changed when discussing charges for violent crimes. While they could understand the import of speedy trials, they could not accept people “getting away with murder” on a “technicality” like delay.

I understand the sentiment; however, it is important to recognize that it is sentiment, not logic. Logically, the level of Charter protection applied to a case should not depend upon what the accused individual has been accused of doing. When people read “accused killer”, they too often skip over the “accused” part and focus solely on the “killer” part, forgetting that accused people, whether they have been accused of shoplifting or murder, are legally innocent.

While the Court of Appeal’s decision focused primarily on other factors, the seriousness of the offence was certainly one of the factors it considered:

First degree murder is the most serious offence in the Criminal Code. Given the serious nature of the alleged crime, there is a heightened societal interest in a trial on the merits. The trial judge appears to have interpreted the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Williamson as standing for the proposition that the seriousness of the offence was neutral. As a result, she failed to take this interest into account. In Cody, the court makes it clear that, when doing the Morin analysis in the context of the transitional exceptional circumstance, the seriousness of the offence remains a significant consideration: paras. 70-71.This passage highlights what I consider to be one of the most positive changes made by Jordan: whereas under Morin, the seriousness of the offence could be taken into consideration as part of the 11(b) analysis, under Jordan it cannot. 

In my opinion, if anything, 11(b) of the Charter should be applied even more strictly in cases involving serious crimes than those involving lesser crimes:
  •  Firstly, individuals accused of serious crimes are often not released on bail and thus remain incarcerated until trial, with the result that legally innocent are held in jail for years. 
  • Secondly, the victims and family members of the victims of serious crime deserve to receive a degree of closure through receiving a verdict in a reasonable amount of time. 
  • Thirdly, given the severity of the sentences and the high level of stigma faced by individuals charged with serious crimes, it is simply merciful to ensure that the charges be resolved as soon as possible, rather than being left to hang over the the individual’s head.

Unfortunately, Mr. Picard’s case has been caught in the transitional maelstrom.* However, the Court of Appeal’s statement that the charges would have been dismissed under Jordan provides a ray of light for defence counsel bringing 11(b) applications in murder and other serious cases under Jordan. Now that the seriousness of the offence can no longer be considered, hopefully 11(b) will be applied equally to all charges. Whether we are dealing with an “accused killer” or an “accused shoplifter,” the focus should remain on the “accused” part.


* Word on the street (and in CBC News) is that Mr. Picard will be applying for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. It will be interesting to watch how this plays out.

Heather Cross is a Flex freelance lawyer who assists other lawyers and law firms in the area of criminal law (drafting facta, appeal books, legal research and drafting) and assists with Supreme Court of Canada agency work.


0 Comments
    Are you a busy lawyer looking for experienced help?
    HELP IS HERE

    Categories

    All
    Blog Series: Starting Your Own Firm
    Book Reviews
    Case Comments
    COVID 19
    Ethics Of Freelance Lawyering
    Flex In Print (News/Publications)
    Flex News
    Freelance Lawyering
    Law (General)
    Law Society
    Legal Innovation
    Networking
    Networking Events
    Personal Management
    Wellbeing

    Archives

    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015

    RSS Feed

      Sign up for our newsletter & have these articles sent directly to you:

    Subscribe
HIRE A FREELANCER: START HERE
Picture
FLEX FREELANCERS' MEMBERS ONLY PAGE
CONTACT:
info@flexlegalnetwork.com
416.509.3655  (Erin's Direct Line)
3080 Yonge Street, Suite 6060
Toronto, ON
​M4N 3N1  (by appointment only)
​Flex                           Services                   Hire Us       FAQs
Flex Clients           Our Lawyers           Join Us       
Fees / Pricing          Blog                          Founder: Erin Cowling  
Resources & Publications 
​Disclaimer/Terms & Conditions

DISCLAIMER

Flex Legal Network Inc. ("Flex Legal") is not a law firm and does not perform legal services. Flex Legal is a company that matches freelance lawyers/law clerk members of our network with law firm/lawyers in need of freelance lawyer/clerk services.  Flex Legal's network of freelance lawyers practice independently and not in an association or other relationship for the joint practice of law. When a law firm/lawyer engages the services of a Flex Legal freelance lawyer the contractual relationship is solely between the freelance lawyer and law firm/lawyer. Flex Legal does not review the legal work provided by the freelance lawyers/clerks with the network.  Each lawyer is solely responsible for her or his own work product and general business activities to the exclusion of any other lawyer and Flex Legal. The information provided in this website should not be construed as legal advice. Transmission of information from this website is not intended to create, and its receipt does not constitute a solicitor-client relationship with Flex Legal or any of its individual network lawyers or personnel. Use of Flex Legal services does not establish a solicitor-client relationship. Flex Legal will protect the confidentiality of information, but information you provide to Flex Legal may not be afforded legal protection as solicitor-client communications. Flex Legal expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of this website. See also our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.


​OUR COMMITMENT TO ANTI-RACISM

We are committed to anti-racism and know we are not doing enough. Right now our activism is donation-based and we are listening and learning, and amplifying BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Colour) voices. We know we must take sustained, intentional action to combat racism. One step we are taking is assessing our annual budget and developing a plan to support BIPOC owned businesses, vendors, and contractors. Acknowledging the lack of BIPOC representation on our team, we are committed to improving this lack of diversity. We want to continually and sustainably do the work to build an anti-racist business and community where everyone feels safe and valued. If you would like to contact us about our anti-racism commitment or how we can improve our allyship, please reach out: info@flexlegalnetwork.com . For law firms looking for ways to support the BIPOC community see this article by Lulu Tinarwu for the CBA National Magazine.
(C) 2015-2021  - Flex Legal Network Inc. - All rights reserved.
"Flex Legal Network", "Flex Legal", & "Flex" are all registered trademarks of Flex Legal Network Inc.

  • How We Help
    • Our Services >
      • Examples of Projects
    • Our Fees
    • Our Story & Our Founder
  • Who We Help
  • FAQs
  • Our Team
  • Hire Us
  • Join Us
  • Blog
    • Articles & Publications
    • Speaking Engagements & Presentations