Source: https://summaryappeallaw.com/category/uncategorized/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:28:20+00:00

Document:
Although the law on this issue is relevant to discriminatory verbal abuse on any prohibited ground, this article focuses on the specific issue of whether, under existing law, verbally abusing a Muslim woman for wearing hijab may amount to Criminal Harassment or Mischief. There is an increase in discrimination against Muslims generally, and Muslim women who wear hijab in particular. For example, on December 18th, 2015 Eric Grenier of CBC reported, “Canadians see Donald Trump’s Muslim-ban idea not so differently from Americans, polls indicate.” On November 20th, 2015 CityNews reported that in a Toronto subway train station, racist comments were yelled at Muslim women, and one of the women was pushed.
Under existing law, a single act of discriminatory verbal abuse may qualify as Criminal Harassment. For example, in R. v. Medeiros, the accused plead guilty to yelling at an unknown Muslim woman “Muslims are terrorists” and “pigs.” Subsequently, the accused sought to strike that guilty plea, but the trial judge refused. He was sentenced to jail. He appealed on the basis that the admitted facts would not support the Criminal Harassment offence.. The Summary Appeal Court, however, disagreed and held that the random and hostile way the accused approached the complainant in a public park, the offensive content of his insulting and threatening language directed at the complainant, the fact that the appellant said these things while “yelling” at her, and her immediate reaction of complaining to her husband about what had just happened, collectively supported the accused’s admission that the complainant reasonably feared for her safety as a result of the accused’s conduct despite it being a single incident.
The single act of discriminatory verbal abuse or conduct may also support the charge of Mischief even with respect to interference with the right to use public property such as a sidewalk. For example, in R v Brazau, involving a Muslim victim, in addition to hate crime charges, the charge of mischief was also laid in respect of the use of sidewalk. In convicting the accused, Justice Clements held that the victim’s use and enjoyment of a public thoroughfare was compromised by the accused’s conduct. The accused’s persistent refusal to comply with a simple request that he stop taking photographs and his aggressive, intimidating and in-your-face photo taking was in itself an interference with the victim’s lawful enjoyment and use of the sidewalk.
Of course, not every verbal abuse may be criminal. The purpose of this article is to provide information and not advice. Moreover, the use of criminal law may not necessarily be always appropriate to resolve such issues. The fact, however, that discriminatory verbal abuse may amount to Criminal Harassment or Mischief should cause everyone pause to reflect.
The law on validity of guilty plea and knowledge of collateral consequences has evolved as I had suggested it would in my book Summary Appeal Law and Trial Advocacy (November, 2015) when discussing the Evolving Law on Validity of Guilty Plea and Knowledge of Immigration Consequences.
To constitute a valid guilty plea, the plea must be voluntary and unequivocal. The plea must also be informed, that is the accused must be aware of the nature of the allegations made against him, the effect of his plea, and the consequence of his plea. However, what is the “consequence” of a plea? In the seminal case of R. v. T. (R.), Justice Doherty held, “By an understanding of the consequences of his pleas, I mean the realization that convictions would flow from his pleas, as well as an appreciation of the nature of the potential penalty he faced.” In other words, R. v. T. (R.) appeared to suggest that consequences were restricted to “penalty” rather than collateral consequences of a guilty plea.
In Ontario, the recent decision in R v. Quick  O.J. No. 582 (Ont.CA) has removed any doubt that consequences of a guilty plea includes state imposed significant collateral consequences. It is now settled law in Ontario that where an appellant raises the validity of a plea for the first time on appeal and claims the plea is uninformed, the appellant must show a failure to appreciate or an unawareness of a potential penalty that is legally relevant . Legally relevant penalties would at least include both Criminal and non-Criminal “penalties” imposed by the state for a Criminal Code offence. However, from the subjective perspective of the accused, these consequences must not be too remote; must not differ significantly from the anticipated consequences; or, must not be too insignificant to affect the validity of the plea. What is called for is a fact-specific inquiry in each case to determine the legal relevance and the significance of the collateral consequence to the accused. A simple way to measure the significance to an accused of a collateral consequence of pleading guilty is to ask: is there a realistic likelihood that an accused, informed of the collateral consequence of a plea, would not have pleaded guilty and gone to trial? In short, would the information have mattered to the accused? If the answer is yes, the information is significant.
In the context of an appeal, the accused and his or her counsel will have to adduce fresh evidence, by way of affidavit, with respect to being uninformed about significant collateral consequences at the time of the guilty plea. If the Court of Appeal concludes that the accused was unaware of what were significant collateral consequences that would result from the guilty plea, and the accused would not have plead guilty if aware of those significant collateral consequences, then the guilty plea would be set aside even if the accused did not have a viable defence to the charge. The prejudice lies in the fact that in pleading guilty, the appellant gave up his right to a trial.
In the context of guilty plea courts, the decision in R v. Quick, supra, has practical questions in the judge’s mandatory plea inquiry under s. 606(1)(1.1) of the Criminal Code. In the context of the collateral consequence of an indefinite driving suspension, Justice Laskin noted “…that before an accused pleads guilty to a driving offence, a trial judge would be well advised to ensure that the accused understands the nature and length of any licence suspensions.” There is no principled reason to suggest that a trial judge should not ensure that the accused understands any other significant collateral consequences, such as immigration consequences, before pleading guilty. It may be prudent for trial judges, and counsel, to address the issue of collateral consequences which are significant to the accused before a guilty plea is entered.
 R. v. T. (R.),  O.J. No. 1914 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 14.
 In Alberta, the opposite conclusion was reached- see R v. Hunt  A.J. No. 196 at paras. 17-23, 2004 ABCA 88 (Alta. C.A.); R. v. Slobodan (1993), 135 A.R. 181 (C.A.).
Analytically, therefore, the question whether there is an absence of evidence to support an acquittal is entirely separate from the question of an absence of evidence to support a conviction. A conviction based upon no evidence involves a fabrication of an element or elements of the offence; an acquittal upon no evidence is simply an application of the presumption of innocence. In other words, an acquittal is the default finding in a criminal trial where the Crown fails to discharge its burden of proof, positive evidence supporting an acquittal is never required.
 R. v. Labadie,  O.J. No. 1257, 275 C.C.C. (3d) 75 (Ont. C.A.).
  O.J. No. 3167, 2008 ONCA 589 (Ont. C.A.).
 Ibid., at para. 71 [emphasis added].
 R. v. Schuldt,  S.C.J. No. 76 (S.C.C.). However, the Crown can appeal an acquittal if the acquittal is based on conjecture. If there was no other rational conclusion based on the evidence other than the guilt of the accused then an acquittal would be based on conjecture and raise a question of law — see R. v. Wild,  S.C.J. No. 69 (S.C.C.) printed page 10 and Sopinka & Gelowitz, The Conduct of an Appeal, Third Edition (Toronto, ON: LexisNexis Canada, 2012) at paras. 3.19-3.23.
… A stay is not a form of punishment. It is not a kind of retribution against the state and it is not a general deterrent. If it is appropriate to use punitive language at all, then probably the best way to describe a stay is as a specific deterrent — a remedy aimed at preventing the perpetuation or aggravation of a particular abuse. Admittedly, if a past abuse were serious enough, then public confidence in the administration of justice could be so undermined that the mere act of carrying forward in the light of it would constitute a new and ongoing abuse sufficient to warrant a stay of proceedings. However, only an exceedingly serious abuse could ever bring such continuing disrepute upon the administration of justice. It is conceivable, we suppose, that something so traumatic could be done to an individual in the course of a proceeding that to continue the prosecution of him, even in an otherwise unexceptionable manner, would be unfair. Similarly, if the authorities were to fabricate and plant evidence at the scene of a crime, the continued pursuit of a criminal prosecution might well be damaging to the integrity of the judicial system.
In R. c. Piccirilli, Moldaver J. for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada explained that the the test used to determine whether a stay of proceedings is warranted is the same for both categories and consists of three requirements: 1) There must be prejudice to the accused’s right to a fair trial or the integrity of the justice system that “will be manifested, perpetuated or aggravated through the conduct of the trial, or by its outcome”; 2) There must be no alternative remedy capable of redressing the prejudice; and 3) Where there is still uncertainty over whether a stay is warranted after steps 1) and 2), the court is required to balance the interests in favour of granting a stay, such as denouncing misconduct and preserving the integrity of the justice system, against “the interest that society has in having a final decision on the merits”. The test is the same for both categories because concerns regarding trial fairness and the integrity of the justice system are often linked and regularly arise in the same case. Having one test for both categories creates a coherent framework that avoids “schizophrenia” in the law. But while the framework is the same for both categories, the test may — and often will — play out differently depending on whether the “main” or “residual” category is invoked. Commencing with the first stage of the test, when the main category is invoked, the question is whether the accused’s right to a fair trial has been prejudiced and whether that prejudice will be carried forward through the conduct of the trial; in other words, the concern is whether there is ongoing unfairness to the accused. By contrast, when the residual category is invoked, the question is whether the state has engaged in conduct that is offensive to societal notions of fair play and decency and whether proceeding with a trial in the face of that conduct would be harmful to the integrity of the justice system. To put it in simpler terms, there are limits on the type of conduct society will tolerate in the prosecution of offences. At times, state conduct will be so troublesome that having a trial — even a fair one — will leave the impression that the justice system condones conduct that offends society’s sense of fair play and decency. This harms the integrity of the justice system. In these kinds of cases, the first stage of the test is met.
In respect of the first stage, while it is generally true that the residual category will be invoked as a result of state misconduct, this will not always be so. Circumstances may arise where the integrity of the justice system is implicated in the absence of misconduct. Repeatedly prosecuting an accused for the same offence after successive juries have been unable to reach a verdict stands as an example, as does using the criminal courts to collect a civil debt . Moreover, in a residual category case, regardless of the type of conduct complained of, the question to be answered at the first stage of the test is the same: whether proceeding in light of the impugned conduct would do further harm to the integrity of the justice system. The court must still consider whether proceeding would lend judicial condonation to the impugned conduct.
I do not foreclose, but do not need to address in this case, the possibility that, in some exceptional cases, sentence reduction outside statutory limits, under s. 24(1) of the Charter, may be the sole effective remedy for some particularly egregious form of misconduct by state agents in relation to the offence and the offender. In that case, the validity of the law would not be at stake, the sole concern being the specific conduct of those state agents.
Finally, the balancing of interests that occurs at the third stage of the test takes on added significance when the residual category is invoked. The balancing need only be undertaken where there is still uncertainty as to whether a stay is appropriate after the first two parts of the test have been completed. When the main category is invoked, it will often be clear by the time the balancing stage has been reached that trial fairness has not been prejudiced or, if it has, that another remedy short of a stay is available to address the concern. In those cases, no balancing is required. In rare cases, it will be evident that state conduct has permanently prevented a fair trial from taking place. In these “clearest of cases”, the third and final balancing step will often add little to the inquiry, as society has no interest in unfair trials.
However, when the residual category is invoked, the balancing stage takes on added importance. Where prejudice to the integrity of the justice system is alleged, the court is asked to decide which of two options better protects the integrity of the system: staying the proceedings, or having a trial despite the impugned conduct. This inquiry necessarily demands balancing. The court must consider such things as the nature and seriousness of the impugned conduct, whether the conduct is isolated or reflects a systemic and ongoing problem, the circumstances of the accused, the charges he or she faces, and the interests of society in having the charges disposed of on the merits. Clearly, the more egregious the state conduct, the greater the need for the court to dissociate itself from it. When the conduct in question shocks the community’s conscience and/or offends its sense of fair play and decency, it becomes less likely that society’s interest in a full trial on the merits will prevail in the balancing process. But in residual category cases, balance must always be considered.
 R. c. Piccirilli, 2014 SCC 16 at para 31 [Piccirilli].
 R v O’Connor,  4 SCR 411 at paragraph 82.
 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Tobiass,  3 SCR 391 at paras 91, 93 and 97 [Tobiass].
 Tobiass, supra note 4 at para 96.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.