Section 3 "For Convenience of Reference Only": Episode Three of the Ideablawg Podcast on the Canadian Criminal Code

The following is the text version of Episode Three of the Ideablawg Podcast on the Canadian Criminal Code. At the end of the text is the actual podcast or, better yet, download the podcast directly from iTunes by searching for ideablawg. Enjoy!

Today we are going to discuss section 3 of the Criminal Code, which is the last section under the interpretation heading. Last week we looked at sections 2 and 2.1, which were definitions of some, but not all, terms used in the Code. As I mentioned last week, the federal Interpretation Act applies to all federal statutes, and therefore the Criminal Code, as long as the provisions found in the Interpretation Act are not inconsistent with the specific statute. If there is a contrary intention, then, the Interpretation Act must give way and the provision found in the specific Act is the rule.

So, this puny interpretation segment in the Code is most definitely not the last word on how to interpret the Code. Indeed, besides legislative interpretation, which is what we are doing here, there is also judge-made interpretation found in case law. Today, we are going to look at case law in understanding section 3 because the puzzle is – what is the significance of this odd section and why, of all the statutory interpretation rules, it is here.

Let’s start with reading this section in order to get our bearings:

First the title of this section – which by the way does not form part of the section but is a way to identify and organize sections in the Code – is “descriptive cross-references.” Far from being “descriptive” this heading is not telling us much. The actual section 3 reads as follows:

Where, in any provision of this Act, a reference to another provision of this Act or a provision of any other Act is followed by words in parenthesis that are or purport to be descriptive of the subject-matter of the provision referred to, the words in parenthesis form no part of the provision in which they occur but shall be deemed to have been inserted for convenience of reference only.

By the way at the end of each section of the Code there is an odd phrase, in this case, “1976-77, c. 53, s. 2.” This phrase denotes the year the section was enacted, in this case 1976-77, and also the chapter number, c.53, of the amending statute with the section, S.2. When the actual amendment is integrated into the Code, the chapter and section number becomes meaningless but it is the year, which gives us valuable information. For example, the previous section, 2.1, which told us that the firearm definitions under s.84(1) apply throughout the Code, was placed in the Code in 2009. So, what we do know about section 3 is that it has been around for quite awhile.

Now getting back to the actual section. What does it mean? Good question. It is one of those sections I call “ugly sections,” which are difficult to understand and require multiple readings before you can glean the meaning. But upon re-reading, the meaning is quite clear: throughout the Code, there may be references to other sections of the Code or even other sections of another statute. There also may be, in parenthesis or brackets, a description of that referred to section following the section number. These parentheses descriptions, so section 3 suggests, may not be completely accurate as they merely act as signifiers of that particular section. Therefore, s. 3 warns the reader that if they do see a description in parenthesis following a section, that description is only there to give us a heads up on what the referred to section means and is not part of the Criminal Code. It’s just a “BTW,” or “By The Way” information for your “convenience of reference only.” Great, thanks for the caution, but that does not explain why, of all the various statutory interpretation rules there are, and there are many, this particular one is integrated into the Code.

Now let’s discuss statutory interpretation. This will be a very superficial discussion as such a talk could and does form a whole course, typically an optional course, offered in law school. “TBH” or “to be honest,” this kind of course should be mandatory for all law students considering the amount of time we all spend, no matter what area of law, reading and trying to understand statutes.

To explain statutory interpretation, I am actually going to go to case law and a recent Supreme Court of Canada criminal law case from 2012 called R v. Dineley. Mr. Dineley was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit. Due to amendments to the Criminal Code a particular defence, which permitted the accused to challenge the accuracy of the breathalyzer readings based on an expert’s toxicology report, called the Carter defence, was eliminated. This amendment happened during Mr. Dineley’s trial and his counsel argued that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively, according to rules of statutory interpretation, and therefore the Carter defence was still valid.

The trial judge agreed and acquitted Dineley but the Court of Appeal for Ontario disagreed and ordered a new trial. The Supreme Court of Canada in a split decision agreed with the trial judge, found the new amendment could not be applied retroactively and upheld the acquittal.

Despite this, I am going to take us to the dissent written by Mr. Justice Cromwell, who has an administrative law background and explains in this case what statutory interpretation does. I am going to read some excerpts of Justice Cromwell’s decision to help us:

He first says: “statutory interpretation aims to ascertain legislative intent…”.

Then, he states what is really the first principle of statutory interpretation:

The courts ascertain legislative intent by reading legislative language in context and in its grammatical and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the scheme and purpose of the legislation at issue...

And here is another fundamental interpretation principle: “When the legislator’s words permit it, the courts will take the legislature not to have intended to work injustice or unfairness.”

Hopefully, you get the idea: that the rules of statutory interpretation are supposed to not only help clarify what we read but also to bring us into the parliamentarian heart whereby we can see and feel the purpose of the framers of legislation in writing the Act. However, we are also not supposed to read too much into this intent, instead we should take a balanced approach, which I would suggest involves applying some good common sense. Conversely, in the United States, the concept has taken a life of its own when dealing with the Constitution through the doctrine of “original intent.” This principle has not gone without controversy but certainly the US Supreme Court is much more concerned with the original intent of the founding fathers than we are of the fathers of confederation. Be that as it may, statutory interpretation is a complex and at times, changing area of law.

This does lead us however to the Interpretation Act, which is chock-full of rules of interpretation and construction. It tells us, for example, that the law is “always speaking” meaning that a law may be fashioned in x year but it applies even if it is used in x + 50 years – as long as the law has not been repealed. It even explains the preambles we were discussing in podcast one: section 13 of the Interpretation Act states "The preamble of an enactment shall be read as a part of the enactment intended to assist in explaining its purport and object."

It does not however tell us what to do if we see words in parentheses. It does, in section 14, advise us that:

Marginal notes and references to former enactments that appear after the end of a section or other division in an enactment form no part of the enactment, but are inserted for convenience of reference only.

This sounds like a very similar caution to section 3 of the Code. So in the end section 3 is really only doing what section 14 of the Interpretation Act is doing, except in the Code parentheses are used. By the way, there are also marginal notes in the Code, such as those headings I have been referring to and which form no part of the actual statute but are just there for organizational purposes.

So where do we find these parentheses actually being used in the Code? Typically, where there is a list of offences such as in s. 231. This section sets out in what circumstances murder is classified, for parole ineligibility purposes, as first-degree. Section 231(5) lists the offences for which an offender, who causes the death of another, is found committing or attempting to commit will then be guilty of first-degree murder. For example s. 231(5)(e) states “section 279 (kidnapping and forcible confinement)”. The words in the parenthesis describe summarily the offence found under s. 279 and is there for “convenience of reference only.” In fact, case law suggests that to describe s. 279(2) as “forcible confinement” is inaccurate as the better description is “unlawful confinement.”

Thank you for joining me on this third podcast. Next week, we won’t be going too far as we discuss s. 3.1 of the Criminal Code. The section is a throwback to the interpretation segment but it falls under a completely new heading and is under the first Part of the Criminal Code – Part I – called the “General” Part of the Code.

Episode Three of the ideablawg Podcast on the Canadian Criminal Code: Section 3 "For Your Convenience Only"

Reasonable Suspicion Part Two: Business As Usual At the Supreme Court of Canada

The much-anticipated Chehil case seems to disappoint. Why? Is it because the case fails to deliver the legal community a clear and workable standard of reasonable suspicion? Or perhaps the decision disappoints because it adds nothing new to legal discourse? I believe it is the latter as the Supreme Court of Canada attempts to invoke the “kiss” or “keep it simple & straightforward” principle.

Instead of breaking new ground on the concept of reasonable suspicion, the Court opts for consistency. No question the Court is consistent when they admonish trial judges to look at a “constellation of factors” in determining the presence of reasonable suspicion: this warning to take into account the “totality of the circumstances” is an accustomed refrain in many of the SCC’s criminal decisions. It has even been referred to as “the totality of the circumstances test” as in the SCC cases of Tessling or, more recently, Cole in determining “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Of interest, this test was also referred to in the SCC Garafoli decision on wiretap authorizations where the “source” of the test is found in the American Illinois v. Gates case from 1983 on “probable cause,” which states:

The elements under the "two-pronged test" concerning the informant's "veracity," "reliability," and "basis of knowledge" should be understood simply as closely intertwined issues that may usefully illuminate the common sense, practical question whether there is "probable cause" to believe that contraband or evidence is located in a particular place. The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. This flexible, easily applied standard will better achieve the accommodation of public and private interests that the Fourth Amendment requires than does the approach that has developed from Aguilar and Spinelli. Pp. 462 U. S. 230-241. (emphasis added)

As indicated from the excerpt above, the Chehil decision feels like a paraphrasing of a tried and true standard. The only difference is the “reasonable suspicion” standard must be down-graded to a search for “possibilities” as opposed to “probabilities” as required for RPG.

What is familiar is the court’s penchant for the “common-sense” approach. In my previous post on Is the Supreme Court of Canada Kicking It Old School, I suggested Justice Moldaver’s decisions were a flash from the past as he relied on his experience as a trial judge where common sense ruled. So too Madame Justice Karakatsantis is reliving old times when she emphasizes how the inquiry “must be fact-based, flexible, and grounded in common sense and practical, everyday experience.” In the SCC universe, the judicial lens is not rose coloured neither is judicial decision making “rocket science” either.

Also familiar in Chehil is the “tweaking” of the Kang-Brown case by requiring sufficiently probative evidence that specifically links this accused to the crime alleged as opposed to relying on generalities. This seemingly new approach is really just an old approach as the SCC renders another decision in support of the “contextual approach.” The real and only question to be answered by the trial judge is the an old one: “Is the totality of the circumstances, including the specific characteristics of the suspect, the contextual factors, and the offence suspected, sufficient to reach the threshold of reasonable suspicion?” Thus, context is everything and everywhere in the realm of judicial possibilities.

Even Madame Justice Karakatsantis’s caution not to base the assessment on investigative profiling is no different than the SCC’s earlier positions on racial profiling and gender-based stereotyping. Thus, we are reminded that “stereotyping and discriminatory factors” are not a justification for intrusive investigative techniques. Yet, a police officer’s “knowledge, training, and experience” are appropriate justifications even though such knowledge is gleaned from profile training.

Another “been there, done that” aspect to this decision is a throw back to my previous post Is Reasonable Suspicion Going To The Dogs? in which I speculate on the forthcoming Chehil case, hoping it will not simply be a re-working of the modified objective standard so popular in the judicial assessment of defences. Unfortunately, this is the case as the trial judge is urged to consider the objective standard in context and in light of the circumstances of the case. Such modification, when done contextually, does not advance the legal issues but obfuscates them. It is difficult enough to use an objective standard based on an artificially designed reasonable person but to use it in the context of real facts and real people is mind boggling at the very least. It would be like taking the facsimile of the reasonable person and pasting it into a personal photo album. The result? Consistent artifice. Now isn’t that contrary to common sense?

Part One of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decisions In The Sniffer Dog Cases: Don’t Throw Out The Principle With The Bath Water!

Question: When is a legal principle clarified by unanimous court but when the principle must subsequently be applied, unanimity goes out the window? Answer: When the Supreme Court of Canada delivers a much anticipated and needed decision on an issue, which, depending on the outcome, may change the face of police investigatory practice. That is the case, of course, in the two sniffer dog decisions in Chehil and MacKenzie, which were supposed to clarify the standard of “reasonable suspicion.” However, instead of the much-needed direction from the Court, the Supreme Court of Canada leaves us with a ruling that fails to clarify. As we all know, legal principles do not live in a vacuum and if they cannot be applied consistently and with some prediction, then the principle becomes a tool of the law and not the rule of law.

Still, the cases do tell us something, about which I have consistently written: that a seemingly objective standard is a fallacy as it is applied through the subjective sensibilities of the assessor, the judge, and in the context of facts, which themselves are founded on a subjective view of the receiver. Chehil and MacKenzie are cases in point: Chehil sets out the principle, to which everyone on the Court agrees, while MacKenzie applies it through the judicial lens. Unfortunately, the judicial lens is of varying strengths and degrees: not everyone on the Court sees matters the same way. The decision is therefore a fractious one. If our Supreme Court of Canada cannot agree then how can the majority, written by Justice Moldaver as I predicted, find the trial judge, who heard the evidence, is wrong. Can one even be wrong when applying an objective reasonable person standard? Are there two reasonable people? Do we even know how a reasonable person thinks? Ah, there’s the rub and there is the tautology: objective standards are only as good as the facts behind them.

If the above seems like a rant, well I suppose it is: the decisions, when read together are puzzling. Moldaver’s MacKenzie decision is even more so when read against the trial judge’s reasons. Unfortunately, one cannot get beyond the admonition of the trial judge when he found it possible “that the observations of the accused claimed to have been noticed by Cst. Sperle were enhanced after the drugs were located.” This kind of after the fact decision-making seems to permeate the SCC decision too but understandably so as in fact there were drugs found and the accused was a drug courier. But what we must all keep in mind is the purpose of the Charter is not to exonerate criminals but to provide oversight when the awesome powers of the state are used,  in whatever circumstances. Just as innocent people may come under scrutiny in a criminal investigation, as pointed out by Madame Justice Karakatsanis in Chehil, so too seemingly guilty people will benefit from inappropriate state intrusion. This is what safeguards our fundamental principles in a free and democratic society.

It is in this context that we must review and analyze these cases. In part two of my case comment, I will do just that.

The Subjective/Objective Debate Explained

Over the past year, I have detected a theme in the criminal cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada: is the criminal law objectively or subjectively based? This is a crucial yet traditional argument touching upon almost every aspect of a criminal charge, including the mental element or mens rea for a crime and criminal law defences. In other words, this issue or debate, impacts all areas of substantive criminal law and therefore is seminal to our understanding of the law and the appropriate and fair application of the law.

As punishment is the ultimate outcome of a finding of guilt in a criminal case, the standard of assessing the accused’s behaviour is of vital importance. Indeed, it is at the core of the presumption of innocence as it provides the tools by which a trier of fact, be it judge or jury, decides whether the prosecutor has proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

As discussed in a previous posting, the standard of assessment can make all the difference between a finding of guilt and a finding of innocence. The subjective standard requires the prosecutor to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this accused intended his or her actions while the objective standard requires the prosecutor to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a reasonable person would have not acted as the accused did in the circumstances of the case. By using a standard of reasonableness as opposed to the particular accused’s awareness, the objective liability is a lower standard and therefore easier for the prosecutor to prove. Yet, objective liability crimes, such as manslaughter, carry the maximum sentence of punishment of life imprisonment. The objective standard is harsh and can result in a conviction of a person, who due to personal frailties and inabilities, could never come up to the standard of a reasonable person. These individuals may be viewed as morally innocent as they do not have an intention to commit the prohibited act. In criminal law we justify this conviction by applying the principle of the utilitarian concept of the “greater good,” which emphasizes the “commonweal” and the importance of preventing societal harm. However by doing so, we ignore the societal interest in preventing the punishment of the morally innocent or those who are, to put it bluntly, “substandard” individuals.

The issue of subjective/objective mens rea came to the foreground after the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was implemented. Section 7 of the Charter requires that no one is to face a loss of liberty except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Harkening back to the presumption of innocence, section 7 seemed to require a conviction based on subjective mens rea or individual awareness of the risk of his or her conduct. In a series of cases in the late 1980s and the 1990s, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed, yet disagreed. The Court agreed certain traditional crimes, such as murder and theft, which attracted great social stigma upon conviction (one is branded as a murderer or a thief), required subjective liability. However, other crimes, particularly those requiring a duty of care such as in the licensed activities of driving, need only require objective liability.

Although, the court arrived at a “modified” objective standard in a split decision in Hundal, the end result was far from a true modification. Unlike Justice Lamer’s dissent position, which called for an allowance for personal characteristics in the objective assessment, the majority preferred to “soften” the harshness of the objective standard by requiring the trier of fact to determine liability “contextually” in the circumstances of the particular facts of the case. Instead of taking heed to the specifics of the individual, the person whose liberty interests were at issue, the court preferred to focus on a construct of reality as revealed by the facts of the case. Justice Lamer’s stance, interestingly and importantly for my analysis, was supported by the now Chief Justice McLachlin.   At the end of the 1990s, it was clear that not only was the objective standard here to stay, it had reached constitutional status. Thus, the standardization of crime came into being.

This penchant for objectiveness also began to permeate the defences available to the accused. Certainly, the assessment of defences on a reasonable or objective standard was not new as seen in the assessment of the common law defences of justifications (self-defence) and excuses (duress and necessity). However, the objective assessment was always tempered with a subjective inquiry to ensure that this accused’s actions in face of a subjectively perceived threat were taken into account. However, I would argue that with the passing of the new defence of the person section in the Criminal Code, the objective requirement is forefront and again, the subjective assessment is left to a factual analysis, devoid of any personal viewpoints. See a previous blog I have done on this very issue. As argued by George Fletcher in an essay on the defences, The Individualization of Excusing Conditions, by turning the focus away from the accused, we are imposing an artificiality into the criminal law process wherein we sacrifice the individual in favour of the rule of law. Thus, we forget that defences, such as excuses, are “an expression of compassion for one of our kind caught in a maelstrom of circumstance.”

In the next posting, I will review the past year of SCC cases on the objective/subjective debate to determine if the Supreme Court of Canada has gone too far into the objective territory.

This Is Thought-Provoking: Supreme Court of Canada To Hear Provocation Cases

In my last post, I considered the new defence of the person section in the Criminal Code, ruminating on the increased reliance this new section appears to have on the “reasonableness” or “reasonable person” standard of assessing the defence. Although the previous defence of the person sections cried out for modernization, the heavy reliance the government and the courts seem to place on the objective versus subjective standard of assessment, leaves one wondering where the individual fits into the new regime. This approach may make it easier for the trier of fact to determine responsibility but at the cost of dehumanizing the criminal law process by shifting the focus from this individual, who may have been justified in committing the crime, to the community norm of how people ought to act.  It is therefore of interest to see the Supreme Court of Canada hearing two Alberta cases, on the provocation defence found in section 232 of the Criminal Code, this April 26, 2013.

In the first case, R v Cairney, the accused was acquitted of second-degree murder but convicted of the lesser and included offence of manslaughter on the basis of the codified provocation defence in the Code. This defence stands apart from the self-defence sections (now section) of the Code and provides for a very specific partial defence based on very specific circumstances. Typically, the class of defences known as justifications and excuses, when accepted, exonerate the accused completely. Provocation, as a justification, only partially relives the accused from culpability, providing for a reduced charge where the defence is made out. Provocation can only be used as a defence where the accused is being tried for murder and the only possible outcome, if the defence is accepted, is a diminishment of the murder charge to the lesser crime of manslaughter. Often the defence is used in conjunction with other defences, such as the more general defence of the person or even the excuses of duress or necessity. In those instances, although provocation as a defence is raised, an accused may be acquitted if the trier of fact accepts these other defences or simply has a reasonable doubt on the accused’s guilt based on the totality of the evidence. Indeed, often the judge in instructing the jury on a murder trial may instruct that even if a particular defence itself does not raise a reasonable doubt, criminal intention may be negated on the basis that all of the defences “rolled up” together may raise a reasonable doubt. Thus, the whole is greater than the parts. In the Cairney case, this instruction was given, but by the conviction for manslaughter, provocation seems to be the controlling factor.

On the Crown appeal, the Alberta Court of Appeal was unanimous in allowing the appeal and sending the matter back, as a murder charge, to trial. In the court’s opinion, the defence of provocation had “no air of reality” and was therefore not properly before the jury. The concept of “air of reality” creates a threshold test, which requires there to be some evidence, upon which a properly instructed jury, acting judicially, could render a verdict based on the defence. In other words, there must be an evidential basis for the defence before the jury should consider it.  The judge does not weigh the evidence, she merely ensures that such evidence is present. It is the function of the jury to weigh the evidence, in its totality, to come to a final decision on guilt or innocence.

This threshold test is not, however, without controversy, as it does require the accused to point to some evidence, which may result in requiring the accused to lead evidence. Although this is viewed as an “evidential” burden only, where the accused has only one defence and is unable to overcome the threshold test, the accused will have no defence at all. On the other hand, there is a public interest in ensuring that a person is tried on the evidence and not on a fanciful doubt.

In the Cairney case, the Alberta Court of Appeal found there was no “air of reality” to the defence based on the objective assessment required for determining whether the wrongful act or insult directed toward the accused, was “sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control” and on the subjective element of the defence, which required the accused to act “on the sudden.” As, in the Court of Appeal’s view, there was no evidence supporting these factors, the defence was not viable and should not have been left to the jury.

There are two concerns here: first, whether or not the Court of Appeal is substituting their opinion when the trial judge, who was present at the trial, decided otherwise and second, whether or not the jury made their decision based on something other than provocation, which would make the manslaughter finding appropriate. Certainly, Cairney could have been acquitted of murder – not having the subjective foresight of death – and yet convicted of manslaughter as he had the objective foreseeability of bodily harm, all without consideration of the provocation defence. The Appellant’s Factum filed on behalf of Cairney at the SCC can be viewed here.

The other Alberta appeal case on provocation, R v Pappas, suggests a more nuanced point. Although Pappas raised the provocation defence, he was convicted of murder at trial. At issue, besides the argument that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the defence, was the post conduct evidence of Pappas disposing of some of the victim’s personal belongings and attempting to leave the country, and whether this evidence was relevant on the issue of provocation. Crown counsel thought it was and so urged the jury to consider the post conduct evidence as negating the provocation defence. Counsel for the accused argued the evidence was irrelevant and should not have been left to the jury on their consideration of provocation.

The majority of the Court of Appeal found there was no error as the trial judge, when referring to the evidence, instructed the jury that the evidence “has no relevance to the issues you must decide,” which was effectively telling the jury the evidence had “no probative value.” However, the trial judge connected the irrelevancy to the issue of identification and did not specifically refer to the defence of provocation. Furthermore, evidence, which has no probative value but is highly prejudicial to the accused, as this evidence may be, should be deemed inadmissible at trial. If the evidence and the manner in which the Crown referred to it in his jury address effectively “took away” the provocation defence from the jury, then the accused should have a new trial. Certainly Justice Berger, in dissent, disagreed with the majority on this issue, finding that the jury instruction did not clearly and unequivocally direct the jury not to use the evidence. Both the respondent and the Appellant’s Factum for the SCC can be viewed here.

Another issue raised on Pappas is the whether or not the defence had an “air of reality” to it. Although the majority preferred not to second-guess the trial judge and proceeded on the basis the defence was viable, Justice Berger came out strongly in the dissent for the defence being left to the jury as it was “for the jury to measure the Appellant’s conduct at the critical moment.” This brings us back to the Cairney case and the role of the jury. These cases may provide some needed guidance on not only provocation as a defence but generally on the issue of threshold tests and on the level of deference appellate courts should have for the jury process.