Section 3.1 and the Effect of Judicial Acts: Episode Four Ideablawg Podcast on the Criminal Code of Canada

The following is the text version of Episode Four of the Ideablawg Podcasts on the Criminal Code of Canada. At the bottom of the text is the actual podcast. However, I do encourage you to read the text as well and follow the hyperlinks to the cases and other websites to which I refer. Enjoy!

Welcome to Episode Four of the Ideablawg Podcasts on the Criminal Code of Canada. My name is Lisa Silver and today we are discussing section 3.1 of the Code, which is entitled “Effect of Judicial Acts.” When I started researching this seemingly innocuous procedure section I uncovered some extremely interesting connections that I am really excited to share with you. So let’s dig deep into section 3.1!

First, I want to set the stage, so to speak, on this section and there are many ways to do this. As I already said, this section is a procedure section. What does that mean? A procedure section involves the process in criminal law as opposed to a substantive law section, which sets out the essential elements of criminal offences or the substance of criminal law.  Criminal procedure is just a set of rules on how that substantive law is enforced and implemented through the criminal justice system. I will reserve a fuller explanation for my blog “basics of Canadian criminal law” series – coming soon.  So, section 3.1 involves the rules of criminal process.

The placement of s. 3.1 is also of importance. Last podcast, when I introduced s. 3.1 as my next podcast, I did so by identifying the section with its place in the Code. I said that s. 3.1 was the first section to come under Part I of the Code, known as the “General” Part. Oddly enough, when I looked at my annotated Criminal Code, being Martin’s Annual Criminal Code, section 3.1 is not placed under Part 1 General Part but is found under the previous interpretation segment discussed in the last three previous podcasts! To make sure I was not mistaken in my podcast placement, I checked the actual statute as found on both the Department of Justice website and canlii (Canadian Legal Information Institute) website and found that s. 3.1 is found under the General Part as I indicated.

So is s. 3.1 an interpretation section or is it a General Part section? With all due respect to my favourite annotated Code, I submit section 3.1 properly comes under the General Part as a matter of process as opposed to a matter of interpretation. Also, Martin’s rival, Tremeer’s Criminal Code, which my husband favours, places section 3.1 as the statute does, under the General Part I. Now that would make a good future blog discussion on the various Criminal Codes, both annotated and not, and their history. Now back to this podcast.

You may wonder how there can be such a discrepancy. I can only speculate but as this section is a fairly recent amendment to the Code, from 2002, the publishers of Martin’s, Canada Law Book, simply placed it after section 3 as opposed to separating the two sections by placing them under different segments. Logically s. 3.1 should come after section 3 but really when the government amends the Code there is often no rhyme or reason to the numbering, as we will see. I mean, where else could they have put this section? I’ll have to think about that.

So we have physically placed the section and now I will read it to you:

Unless otherwise provided or ordered, anything done by a court, justice or judge is effective from the moment it is done, whether or not it is reduced to writing.

What exactly is this section doing? It is in essence creating a presumption. A presumption, which I will later argue is contrary to the common law. This section is telling us that when a court or a specific judicial officer does something – any action such as an order – that act is effective immediately, no matter how it is communicated. So, the presumption is for immediacy. The presumption is however rebuttable, meaning that the court or judge when he does the act can say the act does not take effect immediately. However, if the court or judge says nothing about the time of effectiveness, the presumption is for immediacy.

Okay. That makes sense. When someone does something they mean it to be done asap unless they indicate otherwise – brings to mind Yul Brynner as Ramses II in the Ten Commandments when he says “so let it be written, so let it be done.” Of course, this is as opposed to Yul as the King of Siam in the King and I where he adds onto all of his orders “etc., etc., etc.”

It makes sense to be sure but why did the government add this and why did they only add this in 2002?  In order to find out why they added this section, we turn to the Parliamentary records. This section was part of an omnibus Bill C-15 also known as the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2001, brought in by the then Liberal Government and sponsored by the then Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, the Honourable Anne McLellan. It is amusing and ironic to read the debate on this bill as the opposition, namely the then Canadian Alliance through Vic Toews as the Justice critic, bash the bill because of its omnibus nature. Agreed the bill is an odd mix of Criminal Code amendments, everything from procedural changes such as 3.1 to “animal cruelty, child pornography, and firearms,” but this practice of kitchen-sink amending appears to be pro forma today.

In McLellan’s speech to kick-start the debate on the second reading of the Bill, she stated:

Let me turn briefly to the area of criminal procedure reform. The Department of Justice has been working closely with the provinces and territories on criminal procedure reform for some years. This work is now in its third phase. The objectives of phase three are to simplify trial procedure, modernize the criminal justice system and enhance its efficiency through the increased use of technology, better protect victims and witnesses in criminal trials, and provide speedy trials in accordance with charter requirements. We are trying to bring criminal procedure into the 21st century. This phase reflects our efforts to modernize our procedure without in any way reducing the measure of justice provided by the system. As I said at the outset, the provinces and territories support these reforms. As they are responsible for the administration of justice, I believe that we should do our best to give them the tools they need to ensure the efficient and effective operation of the criminal justice system.

It appears then the amendment was for efficiency and modernization, particularly as a result of the increased use of technology. This is consistent with the legislative history of the amendments, which gives the “key thrust” of the bill is to provide for the use of electronic documents. In terms of section 3.1, the document states:

As a general matter, clause 2 of the bill ensures the legality and immediate effectiveness of judicial acts from the moment they are done, whether or not they are reduced to writing.  This provision ensures the validity of judicial acts made in a number of circumstances where hard-copy documentary proof of the act is not immediately generated.   Such situations could include judicial decisions in the form of orders or warrants which may be issued electronically or orally by telephone or some other form of audio or audio-visual communications link.

There may be another reason for this change as well. Such a rule, albeit worded differently, is found in some provincial rules of court. Each court level has rules to assist them in the nuts and bolts of the organization and maintenance of the courts as well as procedure. Criminal procedure, as a result of s. 91(27) the Constitution Act, 1867, is within the power of Parliament, while s. 92(14) gives the provinces the power to administer justice in the province through rules on civil procedure and the “constitution, maintenance, and organization” of the civil and criminal courts. In terms of civil procedure each provinces rules of court apply. There are also criminal rules, which tend to the organizational side, leaving the procedure, as required by the Constitution Act, with the feds.

Just looking at the Alberta Rules of Court, which were completely overhauled in 2010, rule 9.6 states that the effective date of “every judgment and every order” is on the “date of pronouncement” unless the court orders otherwise. It is similar to section 3.1 yet different. The civil rule is restricted to judgments and orders and to “pronouncements.” According to various dictionaries, “pronouncement” means a formal declaration, usually a judgment. Of course, the Criminal Code section applies to any act of the court and is therefore much broader.

Now we understand why the government decided to put this section into the Code but what is the effect of this effect of judicial acts? For that we are going to look at some case law and the concept of functus. The word functus is from the Latin word fungor, which means to execute or administer or to discharge. When used in its legal sense, it refers to the phrase functus officio, when a judge has exhausted his or her authority over the matter and can no longer alter his or her decision. It typically applies to final decisions of the court. A judge would be functus officio when he or she acquits an accused of a criminal offence. That finding is final, in the sense, that judge no longer has any power over the accused and the case. In other words, the judge cannot re-open the case or amend a final decision unless there has been an administrative “slip” in the decision or “error in expressing the manifest intention of the court.” Instead, there are appellate remedies but the trial judge is now functus and out of the game.

The concept or doctrine of functus officio originally comes from English common law on the premise that we need some finality in court in order for parties to an action to have finality as well. However, this common law rule applied to the final formal judgment and did not apply to any and all acts done by the judge. In fact the common law rule made allowances for informal reasons that may be changed. That is still the law in England, where there is “within the powers of a judge to reconsider his or her decision at any time before it is entered and perfected.” Section 3.1 has now changed the common law. This was recognized in 2004 in the Alberta Queen’s Bench decision in R. v. Harris.

Next podcast, we will be dealing with section 4, which can be viewed as an omnibus section of unrelated statements regarding interpretation of the application of criminal law. It does sound as if this section should be in that interpretation segment but we will see that this section goes further than interpretation to position all users of the Criminal Code on common ground. In this way, this section truly deals with generalities and thus properly in the General Part of the Code.

Episode Four Ideablawg Podcast on Section 3.1 and the effect of Judicial Acts

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.

Episode Two Section Two: The Canadian Criminal Code Podcast

Here is the audio podcast on episode two section two:

Let's talk About the Canadian Criminal Code: Episode Two Section Two