8 ms·

Sounds about right, the RCMP has a long history of First Nations neglect. This seems like it would be a straightforward case to prove his innocence. Also a good

Sounds about right, the RCMP has a long history of First Nations neglect. This seems like it would be a straightforward case to prove his innocence. Also a good reminder of why it's important to never speak with police without a lawyer.

naasking 3y ago
Except we don't have the same rights to a lawyer as in the US. We have a right to speak to a lawyer, but that could be over the phone and they are not present during questioning: https://blogs.ubc.ca/ijhr/2021/11/29/the-right-to-counsel-its-time-for-canada-to-allow-lawyers-in-the-interrogation-room/ https://blogs.ubc.ca/ijhr/2021/11/29/the-right-to-counsel-it...
- Spoom 3y ago
  It also sounds like the RCMP will never take the case to trial (based on the article, they may know that this is actually triangulation fraud) and as such, he'll never have a chance to either defend himself or expunge his record.
  - papercrane 3y ago
    If charges are withdrawn or dismissed, as long as you don't have any convictions on record and there isn't a public safety concern you can request the destruction of non-conviction information from your record. It's silly that you need to request it, but there is a process to expunge your record.
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      I think part of the issue here is the subtle distinction between stayed and withdrawn.
      - deno 3y ago
        It seems the charges expire after a year. As per https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-98.html#docCont https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-98.html#d...: (4) However, if the Attorney General or counsel does not give notice under subsection (3) on or before the first anniversary of the day on which the stay of proceedings was entered, the proceedings are deemed never to have been commenced.
- Scoundreller 3y ago
  > We have a right to speak to a lawyer, but that could be over the phone and they are not present during questioning You can refuse to answer most questions during questioning, but even if you yell “lawyer!!!” A million times and spill the beans after the millionth repeat question, you’re screwed. Then there’s the constitution “protections” about illegally gained evidence where the judge can say “yeah, it was unconstitutional but I’ll allow it anyway”
- wredue 3y ago
  I don’t know why Canada gets so many weird AF legal claims on HN and Reddit (in particular that we supposedly don’t have the right to self defence), but we do, in fact, have the right to remain silent and to not be compelled to testify against oneself. There are circumstances where you can be interviewed without a lawyer present, but you cannot be compelled to answer those questions, and you can still consult a lawyer for all interview questions.
  - twisteriffic 3y ago
    There's a huge cottage industry of YouTube rage farmers who spread that kind of misinformation for clicks. It's particularly popular in the prairies right now.
    - mardifoufs 3y ago
      That's funny because no, they are wrong. We can be compelled to answer questions that incriminate ourselves and our right to speak to a lawyer isn't as strong as it is in the US. You can be interrogated even after asking for a lawyer.
      - wredue 3y ago
        No, you are wrong: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art11c.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/chec... I don’t even know how you could force someone to testify against themselves. Seems like an unreliable witness…
        mardifoufs 3y ago
        What? How does that prove me wrong? You can still be forced to be a witness and answer questions even if they do incriminate yourself. >In Canada a person has the right not to have any incriminating evidence that the person was compelled to give in one proceeding used against him or her in another proceeding except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence. Thus, in Canada, a witness cannot refuse to answer a question on the grounds of self-incrimination, but receives full evidentiary immunity in return. https://www.mpllp.com/no-right-to-remain-silent https://www.mpllp.com/no-right-to-remain-silent
chromatin 3y ago
Unfortunately, Canada does not have the same legal protections (both in written law [i.e., the Bill of Rights] and in jurisprudence) as in the United States.
- beached_whale 3y ago
  What rights in the US would have helped here the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't already do. Section 9 and 10 seem to cover this well
  - adamwk 3y ago
    Well going off the article he’d at least not have a criminal record
    - mthoms 3y ago
      He doesn't have a criminal record though. He has an arrest record. Granted the way the article explained it is pretty poor. I'm not totally clear what it was trying to say in that regard. As an aside, Canada has a robust pardon system[0] that the US doesn't have. At least aside from the truly bizarre (at least to me) system of presidential pardons. A pardon wipes your record of the specific crime completely FWIW. [0] https://www.pardons.org/pardons/faqs/ https://www.pardons.org/pardons/faqs/
  - chromatin 3y ago
    > What rights in the US would have helped here the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't already do. Section 9 and 10 seem to cover this well A fair question. First, as I was not making a top level comment, but responding to another comment, I was not specifically addressing this case, but instead making a broader statement about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and the attendant judicial interpretations of same) versus the US Bill of Rights (and likewise legal interpretations). (Side note, a sibling comment thread makes the same argument). In particular, Canadian courts have pretty consistently allowed more exceptions to the charters compared to US courts and Bill of Rights. Additionally, the charter makes much weaker protections in several specific circumstances, for example in section 24(2), whereby evidence collected illegally may still be used in criminal proceedings (see R v Grant 1990). But section 1 is the real kicker. As a specific example, you referenced Section 9 of CRF. In R v Ladouceur [1], the Canadian Supreme Court found that although random traffic stops (fishing expeditions) violated Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they were permitted under Section 1 of the Charter. Section 1 contains the prefatory text: "The Canadian 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*" (emphasis mine) The fact that such weasel words / escape hatch would be enshrined into something that is purported to be as fundamental as the Bill of Rights essentially nullifies the entire thing, in my opinion. Indeed, section 1 is often quoted in Canadian jurisprudence as justification for all sorts of -- again, in my opinion -- government overreach. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Ladouceur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Ladouceur
orwin 3y ago
By the way, quick aside, if you go to the police yourself (someone wronged you), you should also go with a lawyer. It'll be taken more seriously, be harder to dismiss, and be both council and support while you go through the steps.

naasking 3y ago

Except we don't have the same rights to a lawyer as in the US. We have a right to speak to a lawyer, but that could be over the phone and they are not present during questioning: https://blogs.ubc.ca/ijhr/2021/11/29/the-right-to-counsel-its-time-for-canada-to-allow-lawyers-in-the-interrogation-room/ https://blogs.ubc.ca/ijhr/2021/11/29/the-right-to-counsel-it...

Spoom 3y ago
It also sounds like the RCMP will never take the case to trial (based on the article, they may know that this is actually triangulation fraud) and as such, he'll never have a chance to either defend himself or expunge his record.
- papercrane 3y ago
  If charges are withdrawn or dismissed, as long as you don't have any convictions on record and there isn't a public safety concern you can request the destruction of non-conviction information from your record. It's silly that you need to request it, but there is a process to expunge your record.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    I think part of the issue here is the subtle distinction between stayed and withdrawn.
    - deno 3y ago
      It seems the charges expire after a year. As per https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-98.html#docCont https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-98.html#d...: (4) However, if the Attorney General or counsel does not give notice under subsection (3) on or before the first anniversary of the day on which the stay of proceedings was entered, the proceedings are deemed never to have been commenced.
Scoundreller 3y ago
> We have a right to speak to a lawyer, but that could be over the phone and they are not present during questioning You can refuse to answer most questions during questioning, but even if you yell “lawyer!!!” A million times and spill the beans after the millionth repeat question, you’re screwed. Then there’s the constitution “protections” about illegally gained evidence where the judge can say “yeah, it was unconstitutional but I’ll allow it anyway”
wredue 3y ago
I don’t know why Canada gets so many weird AF legal claims on HN and Reddit (in particular that we supposedly don’t have the right to self defence), but we do, in fact, have the right to remain silent and to not be compelled to testify against oneself. There are circumstances where you can be interviewed without a lawyer present, but you cannot be compelled to answer those questions, and you can still consult a lawyer for all interview questions.
- twisteriffic 3y ago
  There's a huge cottage industry of YouTube rage farmers who spread that kind of misinformation for clicks. It's particularly popular in the prairies right now.
  - mardifoufs 3y ago
    That's funny because no, they are wrong. We can be compelled to answer questions that incriminate ourselves and our right to speak to a lawyer isn't as strong as it is in the US. You can be interrogated even after asking for a lawyer.
    - wredue 3y ago
      No, you are wrong: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art11c.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/chec... I don’t even know how you could force someone to testify against themselves. Seems like an unreliable witness…
      - mardifoufs 3y ago
        What? How does that prove me wrong? You can still be forced to be a witness and answer questions even if they do incriminate yourself. >In Canada a person has the right not to have any incriminating evidence that the person was compelled to give in one proceeding used against him or her in another proceeding except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence. Thus, in Canada, a witness cannot refuse to answer a question on the grounds of self-incrimination, but receives full evidentiary immunity in return. https://www.mpllp.com/no-right-to-remain-silent https://www.mpllp.com/no-right-to-remain-silent

chromatin 3y ago

Unfortunately, Canada does not have the same legal protections (both in written law [i.e., the Bill of Rights] and in jurisprudence) as in the United States.

beached_whale 3y ago
What rights in the US would have helped here the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't already do. Section 9 and 10 seem to cover this well
- adamwk 3y ago
  Well going off the article he’d at least not have a criminal record
  - mthoms 3y ago
    He doesn't have a criminal record though. He has an arrest record. Granted the way the article explained it is pretty poor. I'm not totally clear what it was trying to say in that regard. As an aside, Canada has a robust pardon system[0] that the US doesn't have. At least aside from the truly bizarre (at least to me) system of presidential pardons. A pardon wipes your record of the specific crime completely FWIW. [0] https://www.pardons.org/pardons/faqs/ https://www.pardons.org/pardons/faqs/
- chromatin 3y ago
  > What rights in the US would have helped here the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't already do. Section 9 and 10 seem to cover this well A fair question. First, as I was not making a top level comment, but responding to another comment, I was not specifically addressing this case, but instead making a broader statement about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and the attendant judicial interpretations of same) versus the US Bill of Rights (and likewise legal interpretations). (Side note, a sibling comment thread makes the same argument). In particular, Canadian courts have pretty consistently allowed more exceptions to the charters compared to US courts and Bill of Rights. Additionally, the charter makes much weaker protections in several specific circumstances, for example in section 24(2), whereby evidence collected illegally may still be used in criminal proceedings (see R v Grant 1990). But section 1 is the real kicker. As a specific example, you referenced Section 9 of CRF. In R v Ladouceur [1], the Canadian Supreme Court found that although random traffic stops (fishing expeditions) violated Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they were permitted under Section 1 of the Charter. Section 1 contains the prefatory text: "The Canadian 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*" (emphasis mine) The fact that such weasel words / escape hatch would be enshrined into something that is purported to be as fundamental as the Bill of Rights essentially nullifies the entire thing, in my opinion. Indeed, section 1 is often quoted in Canadian jurisprudence as justification for all sorts of -- again, in my opinion -- government overreach. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Ladouceur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Ladouceur

orwin 3y ago

By the way, quick aside, if you go to the police yourself (someone wronged you), you should also go with a lawyer. It'll be taken more seriously, be harder to dismiss, and be both council and support while you go through the steps.