by Jason Tarnow | Apr 9, 2015 | Wheels Of Justice
In a move that has lawyers and legal advocates cringing, the B.C. Government announced its plan to move ahead with the eradication of Traffic Court in the Provincial Court system. But what does it mean for you?
As it stands today with the “old system”, any individual who is given a traffic citation (violation ticket) has the right to dispute the allegation in Court before a Provincial Court Judge. At their hearing, one may hire a lawyer to represent them, tender evidence, and present witnesses. It also provides an opportunity for the Accused person to confront their Accuser (in this case, the police officer(s) who issued the ticket) and cross examine them on their evidence. It is a perfect illustration of how the adversarial system – essential to the administration of justice in common law – works, and has worked over the past hundreds of years. Unfortunately, it is soon to be a thing of the past.
The proposed new system involves diverting traffic matters to an adjudicatory body, similar to the one that handles Immediate Roadside Prohibitions. Here’s a breakdown of how the new system will work:
1) Police will now issue tickets via an online “e-ticketing” system, which will also be used for payment
2) Disputes will first be handled by the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. Offenders will be offered incentives to plead guilty (a reduced fine, time to pay, etc)
3) If you decide to proceed with your dispute, you will be directed to the Driving Notice Review Board. You will have a pre-hearing date where you will be required to submit any evidence you will be relying on to supplement your argument. Then, you will have your hearing before the Driving Notice Review Board (either in person, over the phone, or by writing). The Board will consider your evidence and the officer’s evidence and will render a final decision. Once that decision has been rendered, there is no opportunity for appeal or judicial review.
What it boils down to is citizens being stripped of the right to their day in Court. The fact that there is no opportunity for review is one of the most frightening things – and it ties in perfectly with the Ministry of Justice’s explanation that the new process will encourage “system efficiencies”. Obviously if you cut out an entire part of the process, things will move at a quicker pace.
All in all, the Government’s scheme to save money comes at a dire price for the citizens of British Columbia, and I can’t help but wonder – what are our rights worth?
by Jason Tarnow | Apr 2, 2015 | Police
This week a Kamloops case made headlines across British Columbia where a 76 year old man was sentenced to jail for growing 150 marijuana plants. The judge had no discretion in what to sentence him to – there is now a mandatory minimum of 6-months jail for anyone found guilty of possessing 6 to 199 marijuana plants.
The story can be found here:
http://www.theprovince.com/news/year+grandfather+gets+mandatory+month+jail+term+small+marijuana+grow/10938062/story.html
Coincidentally, I was in Nelson, B.C. this week for a trial and before my trial commenced, I witnesses a 56-yr old man get sentenced for the exact same offence, though it was for 110 plants. The man had a young family and serious health conditions. The judge’s hands were tied and the man got 6-months in the bucket. It was very sad to see.
We are in very strange times here in British Columbia and all of Canada when it comes to our drug laws. Above B.C. we recently saw Alaska decriminalize recreational cannabis, and the same has happened below us in Washington state. Other American states have recently followed suit. The Americans have realized that their “war on drugs” does little to deter usage.
But Canada, under the Federal Conservative Gov’t, continues to enact laws that take away the discretion from sentencing judges but imposing mandatory minimums. The results are what we saw in Kamloops and Nelson – families being torn apart, judges having no/limited discretion in how/what to sentence people to.
Mandatory minimum sentences do not work. It didn’t work in the U.S. and why our Federal Gov’t has implemented them, after seeing how they failed down South, I will never understand. I chalk it up to fear-mongering and vote-getting. But the human cost is severe.
I specialize in defending drug offences and represent people all over Metro Vancouver, Richmond, Surrey, and all regions of British Columbia. Being charged with a criminal offence is daunting and can effect one’s employment and ability to travel.
by Jason Tarnow | Mar 24, 2015 | Crime, Legal Rights
Up in smoke: don’t get baked by baking (yet)
On Friday, March 20, 2015, B.C. lawyer Kirk Tousaw attended the Supreme Court of Canada to argue the encroachment of certain provisions of the Controlled Drugs & Substances Act on a person’s ability to consume medical cannabis.
As it stands, the only way in which medical marijuana can be legally consumed is through smoking or vaping. This posed a huge issue in 2009 for Mr. Owen Smith, a Victoria resident who baked cannabis-infused cookies and produced cannabis-infused cooking oils for members of the local Cannabis Buyers Club. Mr. Smith was charged with trafficking for his production of over 200 cookies and oils after a large volume of paraphernalia was found in his apartment. He was acquitted of all charges after the B.C Supreme Court ruled that the criteria within the annex of Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, part of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act governing rules of consumption, was indeed unconstitutional.
The B.C. Government appealed the ruling of the Supreme Court in the B.C. Court of Appeal. Unfortunately for the Fed’s, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision in a 2-1 split. Because of the split decision of the Court, the Government was automatically granted Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada.
One of the main focuses of the pro-cannabis argument to allow for the consumption of edibles and the like, circles around the fact that not all marijuana users wish to be smoking day in and day out. For those suffering from conditions that include chronic pain or discomfort, the act of smoking can be unpleasant and can result in unwanted side effects. Aside from that, it also allows consumers to dose while being discreet (apparently not everyone loves the smell of freshly burned herb) which should satisfy roommates, neighbors, and landlords.
Furthermore, studies have suggested that edible marijuana products can leave you with a much more desirable high than you get with smoking. The effects also last much longer, which leads to users having to medicate on a less frequent basis.
We still do see people charged with criminal offences that are marijuana-related in Vancouver and its surrounding suburbs of Richmond, Surrey, and beyond. However, this is the first time that a medical marijuana matter of contention has made it to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is, without a doubt, going to be a landmark decision that will impact medical cannabis users, producers, and suppliers.
by Jason Tarnow | Oct 7, 2013 | Crime, Legal Rights
In British Columbia, and across Canada, we pride ourselves in being known as multicultural, diverse, and tolerant. In particular, we encourage the celebration of our Aboriginal peoples’ heritage and culture – an ideation that has deep roots in our history. The issues surrounding the treatment our First Nations’ peoples are as delicate as they are primary; although we have made great strides over the past decade, we still have a long way to go before we declare success. An area that is often over looked by the general public, however, is how Aboriginal people are handled in our Judiciary system.
For example, Aboriginal people account for approximately 2.8% of the entireCanadian population – a fairly small percentage. Therefore it may be surprising to learn that they account for a whopping 18% of Canada’s federal inmates (according to the Correctional Service of Canada (“CSC”)). The CSC has stated that they are committed to developing a National Strategy that will specifically target the unique considerations that must be taken when dealing with Aboriginal offenders. They place specific importance on interventions for these offenders by developing and implementing care strategies for individuals suffering from substance abuse, and other addiction issues. Unfortunately, this likely means removing individuals from homes on reserves, which are often located in remote communities, without the resources to deal with the serious medical issues that accompany substance abuse problems. It is also an idea that is met with resistance from the First Nation’s people, which is understandable.
The lack of ways and means to address addiction issues early on often leads to “intervention” (i.e. the arrest and detainment of an Aboriginal offender) at the point where there is little that can be done – other than to have the individual slowly manoeuvre their way through our ever-clogged Court system. It is in our sophisticated and couth judicial system, that the unique needs of the Aboriginal offender are often neglected.
So by this point you’re probably wondering what justice-specific initiatives our Government is taking in order to properly deal with this issue. Well, there were a couple of legislative actions taken back in the 90’s, a few Directives from various commissions, and even an Annex or two. But it seems pretty obvious that these attempts can’t be labelled as anything other than futile.
Probably, though, the most noteworthy stride made by the Canadian Government towards respectfully handling the issue of Aboriginal offenders in our penal system, is the creation of Gladue Court.
Essentially, if you meet the specific requirements (Aboriginal Heritage being key, among others) you can have your case directed to Gladue Court, where the sentencing Judge will take into consideration the specific and unique circumstances of you being Aboriginal (discrimination, residential schools, etc).
The name of the Court is derived from the landmark 1999 Supreme Court of Canada case known as R. v. Gladue. The main principle of the case is that other reasonable alternatives should always be considered prior to a custodial (jail) sentence. This could mean serving a sentence in the community, counselling, and rehabilitation in relation to drugs and alcohol abuse. If the sentencing Judge determines that a jail term is necessary due to public interest, he or she must still take the sentencing provisions of Gladue into account, which could result in a lighter custodial sentence.
There are a few flaws, though. One major pitfall is that an individual cannot be considered for Gladue Court if they are in custody. If you’ve been detained without Bail, or can’t obtain the necessary resources to make Bail, you’re considered ineligible. Another disadvantage is that the principles of Gladue are still improperly applied in many instances. It isn’t a system that is necessarily taken advantage of by those who may benefit from it, simply due to a lack of knowledge surrounding its existence.
We are fortunate enough to have a Gladue Court in Vancouver, British Columbia, which is available to residents in Richmond, New Westminster, Surrey, Delta, and so on. There are several other Gladue Courts located in Eastern Canada, for example, in Toronto, Ontario. It is likely that this Court will expand as the demand grows for services – and the demand can only grow, the system can only flourish, through knowledge and education.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence and would like to know if you meet the necessary prerequisites to be considered for Gladue Court, it is important to have an experienced and seasoned criminal defence lawyer there to assist with the process. Please do not hesitate to contact us at Tarnow and Company where we are proud to offer extensive knowledge surrounding Gladue Court procedures.
by Jason Tarnow | Oct 3, 2013 | Crime
As mentioned in previous posts on our site, David Tarnow is qualified to engage in the practice of law in the Territory of the Yukon. Over the past year, Mr. Tarnow has successfully argued a number of cases in the Territorial Court. More often than not, the cases have either resulted in an acquittal of the Accused, or have been resolved by way of a Stay of Proceedings – both of which are optimal results for the Defence in any criminal case.
Since the beginning of September 2013, Mr. Tarnow has been conducting a Jury Trial in Yukon’s Supreme Court, in which our client has been charged with the Attempted Murder of a Police Officer. It goes without saying that this charge is one of most serious offences in the Criminal Code of Canada. The Whitehorse Star, a local paper in Whitehorse, Yukon, released an article surrounding the circumstances of the alleged offence and the Trial, and can be read here:
http://www.whitehorsestar.com/archive/story/lawyer-renews-his-suspicions-of-investigations-handling/
The Jury is expected to begin their deliberations shortly. Make sure to check back to our site to keep up to date with the outcome of the case.
