Publication bans have been a part of the Criminal Code since 1988. A publication ban is a court law that prohibits trial information from leaving the case. Since these bans were first introduced in Canada, they have become a very useful tool in Common Law. These bans have been frequently used over the years for many purposes including avoiding the risk of adverse consequences to participants and for more accurate trial procedures. Having publication bans are beneficial, in every which-way, than not. These bans contribute positively to the environment of law and most importantly, the society within. This essay will outline why the court should have the right to impose a publication ban in Canada. It will support the debate that if Canada wishes to build towards a reputation of having trials handled efficiently, then it should not change the nature of these publication bans. It will portray the importance of these bans through a thorough explanation of how the bans work, and two solid arguments of the cause on the society and environment. First, this essay will discuss basics of publication bans and how they work. Then, this essay will point out how publication bans contribute to trial fairness in the court. Finally, this essay will touch upon how publication bans protect victims and those involved in the trials.
The court, when needed, handles publication bans wisely and with care. Just like any other law, publication bans are put to use for positive outcomes and improvements, and the court assures this. Publication bans are considered to the court either by a request from a trial participant during a bail hearing, or by the decision of a judge, when he/she feels the ban is necessary (CBCN). Given this, people may speculate that ...
... middle of paper ...
...or Victims of Crime. Accessed: October 23, 2011. http://www.crcvc.ca/en/media-guide/part-1/publication-bans
DJC
Publication Bans. Department of Justice Canada. Accessed October 21, 2011. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/pcvi-cpcv/ban-inter.pdf
GAHS
Publication Bans. Government of Alberta Human Services. Accessed: October 23, 2011. http://www.child.alberta.ca/home/582.cfm
OMAG
Guidelines – Publication Bans. Ontario Ministry of Attorney General. Accessed: October 21, 2011. http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/pub_ban.asp
LAUCL
Blair, Annice. Law in Action: Understanding Canadian Law. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Education Canada, 2003. Print.
STAR
Tyler, Tracey.The Criminal Case You Can’t Know About. TheStar.com News. Accessed January 15, 2012. http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1080416--the-criminal-case-you-can-t-know-about?bn=1
Systems: The canadian Future in light of the American Past.” Ontario native Council on Justice. Toronto, Ontario.
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
Hulbert, M. A. (2011). Pursuing justice: An introduction to justice studies. Black Point, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.
How to appropriately and fairly carry out criminal justice matters is something that every country struggles with. A major reason for this struggle is the fallibility of the justice system. It is acceptable to concede that the possibility of human error in every case and investigation may lead to a wrongful conviction. In the case of David Milgaard, however, Canada's Criminal Justice System not only erred, but failed grievously, resulting in millions of dollars wasted, in a loss of public confidence in the system, and most tragically, in the robbery of two decades of one man's life. Factors including, but not limited to, the social context at the time of the crime, the social perception of deviance, the influence of the media, and the misconduct of investigating police and prosecution played a substantial role in the subsequent miscarriage of justice.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
As noted by Allen (2016), measures that are implemented outside the courtrooms, especially in a formal procedure, may lead to the provision of accurate as well as timely considerations for youth crime. As such, Canada is keen in the reinforcement of these regulations, as they determine both short and long-term judicial solutions. Most importantly, the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) in Canada plays a major role in the implementation of extrajudicial measures as they may affirm to the occurrence of future issues. According to the Government of Canada (2015a), this calls for an attempt to channel out or divert such offenders from the mainstream justice system to a lesser formal way of dealing with the offenses. This paper attempts to investigate the appropriateness of the extrajudicial measures in Canada, and the reason behind why we established these provisions of the YCJA. It also illustrates an example of a Canadian case, which questions the extrajudicial measures. This discussion canvasses the main argument as for or against the extrajudicial measures in Canada through the adoption of recommendations to the Canadian Government about the proper situations in which such processes should be used.
Welsh, B., & Irving, M. (2005). Crime and punishment in Canada, 1981-1999. Crime and Justice, 33, 247-294. Retrieved from http://library.mtroyal.ca:2063/stable/3488337?&Search=yes&searchText=canada&searchText=crime&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dcrime%2Bin%2Bcanada%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=18&ttl=33894&returnArticleService=showFullText
The Canadian Justice system is run like a well-oiled machine. It is based on the fair and humane treatment of suspects who remain innocent until proven guilty. There is one big question that has been debated since July 14th, 1976 - should the death penalty have been abolished in Canada? The new younger generation of Canadians seems to agree with me that the death penalty should be resurrected in Canada.
This concludes my summary of lessons gleaned from the course BSL 301 Legal Research, Writing, and Analysis referencing Honigberg, G. "Gilbert Law Summaries: Legal Research, Writing, and Analysis" 10th ed. BarBri Group, 2006.
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
Wrongful convictions in Canada is a very sensitive and disturbing topic that has created concerns as to why individuals are being wrongfully convicted. As people in Canada read about cases involving wrongful conviction, such as Guy Paul Morin, Rubin Carter and David Millguard, it often undermines their faith in the criminal justice system. Tunnel vision, the use of questionable DNA evidence, and eyewitness misidentification are the three main causes of wrongful convictions in Canada. Recognizing and addressing these concerns has led to a reduction in cases of wrongful convictions in Canada.
In the year 1970, the Canadian government founded the Law Reform Commission of Canada to ensure the progression of law making and to make recommendations for legal changes . The Law Reform Commission of Canada is constantly importing and suggesting proposals towards the criminal code of Canada. During the year of 1985, t...
Governmental policies in Canada today continue to change and evolve along with the needs of people and the consequences of globalization. More recently were the creation of polices that resulted from ...
How free is freedom of the press in Canada? The freedom of press is guaranteed by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “Everyone [has] the fundamental freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication” (Media Law). However, Section 1 states that the fundamental freedoms in democracy can be limited for justifiable reasons: “The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” (Media Law). There are criminal and common laws on the provincial and federal levels which place legal restriction on how the press gathers and publishes information (Media Law). For example, there are criminal laws against trespassing and recording information (“Defamation on the Internet”). The essay will focus upon the law most relevant to freedom of the press issues, “defamation.”
Contemporary Readings in Law & Social Justice, 5(2), 454-460.