Your search

"Sentencing in Canada contains a unique collection of essays that explore all key aspects of sentencing. The contributors include leading academics, criminal law practitioners, and members of the judiciary, and many of the authors have extensive experience working in the areas of sentencing and parole. The volume is not simply a statement of the law — instead, the chapters explore the wider context in which sentencing and parole decisions are taken. The volume also incorporates findings from the latest empirical research into sentencing policy and practice in Canada, including important issues such as sentencing Indigenous persons. As Mr Justice Moldaver notes in his preface, the volume “will be useful to criminal law practitioners and, more generally, to all persons interested in sentencing.”" - hinterer Umschlagtext

Since the swift passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act in 2015, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) has had the unprecedented and highly controversial authority to take ‘reasonable and proportionate’ measures to reduce threats to Canadian security. While there are some limits to the types of measures CSIS can employ, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act permits the use of measures that would otherwise contravene the laws of Canada or limit a right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so long as they are judicially authorized by the Federal Court. As new threats proliferate around the world, it is anticipated that CSIS will increasingly carry out this mandate overseas. Yet review bodies tasked with monitoring CSIS’s use of threat reduction measures (TRMs) report that CSIS has never sought judicial authorization to conduct a TRM. Why? One answer may be that CSIS has concluded that the Charter does not govern actions carried out abroad, and, as such, their extraterritorial conduct falls beyond the reach and oversight of the Federal Court. Whether the Charter applies to CSIS’s overseas conduct ostensibly lies in the Supreme Court of Canada’s leading case on the extraterritorial application of the Charter, R v Hape. This article canvasses domestic and international law, as well as intelligence law theory, to explain why that presumption is wrong. Wrong, not least because the majority opinion in Hape is deeply flawed in its analysis and application of international law. But also, because intelligence operations are so distinguishable from the transnational criminal investigations at issue in Hape, the Court’s findings are inapplicable in the former context. In short, this article demonstrates that applying Hape to the actions of CSIS officers not only leaves their actions beyond the scrutiny of Canadian courts but also creates a significant human rights gap.

"International criminal law has focused on the prosecution of truly international crimes--genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. The emerging field of transnational criminal law reflects the fact that our post-Cold War, post-9/11 world has seen the growth of transnational crimes of international concern, such as terrorism, money laundering, organized crime, and human and narcotics trafficking, as well as transnational crimes of domestic concern, which are simply ordinary domestic crimes that involve the jurisdiction of more than one state. This book surveys these two related but increasingly distinct fields with a focus on Canada, bringing together in one accessible text topics that are of increasing importance in a world of globalized crime, from a substantive perspective and through examination of the expanding range of international tribunals dealing with such crimes. This third edition updates caselaw and international practice from Canada, including substantial revisions relating to the prosecution of cross-border crimes. It also combines examinations of international courts and tribunals, transnational criminal law treaties, and recent literature to provide a unique perspective on these two international law disciplines that, while best viewed as separate, retain a common heritage and some overlapping concepts and applications."-- Provided by publisher.

Dans l’arrêt R c Jarvis, la Cour suprême du Canada (CSC) a interprété pour la première fois la disposition du Code criminel sur le voyeurisme. Le présent article examine la jurisprudence pertinente en matière de voyeurisme qui a précédé l’arrêt Jarvis, y compris trois questions litigieuses qui ont façonné les interprétations judiciaires antérieures : la pertinence de la jurisprudence relative à l’article 8 de la Charte, la perspective de la vie privée en public et l’applicabilité de l’analyse du risque. Bien que les motifs de la CSC ne reconnaissent pas explicitement les questions d’égalité en jeu, son traitement de ces trois questions reflète sans doute trois volets de la théorie et de la jurisprudence féministes qui favorisent l’égalité. Cet article explore ce chevauchement, suggérant que les motifs de la CSC dans l’arrêt Jarvis peuvent être compris comme étant implicitement féministes. Reconnaissant que des motifs explicitement féministes auraient un plus grand potentiel de reconnaissance de l’égalité, l’auteure affirme que les motifs de la CSC représentent une étape positive vers une conception du droit à la vie privée en ce sens.

Five dimensions of gender-based violence are explored: unwanted sexual behaviour while in public, unwanted sexual behaviour online, unwanted sexual behaviour in the workplace, sexual assault, and physical assault. * According to the 2018 Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces (SSPPS), an estimated 1 million people in Canada are sexual minorities-that is, they reported their sexual orientation as gay, lesbian, bisexual or a sexual orientation that is not heterosexual-representing 4% of the population of Canada 15 years of age and older. * In addition, approximately 75,000 people, or 0.24% of the population of Canada aged 15 and older indicated on the SSPPS that their assigned sex at birth was different from their current gender, or that they were neither male nor female-in other words, that they are transgender. Research suggests that sexual minority (those who stated their sexual orientation as lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, or otherwise not heterosexual) people experience violence at a greater prevalence than heterosexual people (Simpson 2018; Walters et al. 2013). While this analysis will focus on the impacts of sexual orientation and gender on experiences of victimization and unwanted sexual behaviours, it is important to recognize that there are many aspects of a person that can intersect-such as their sexual orientation, gender, race, or whether they have a disability-and impact their likelihood of experiencing victimization (Crenshaw 1994). Experiences of sexual minority Canadians According to the 2018 Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces (SSPPS), an estimated 1 million Canadians are sexual minorities-that is, they reported their sexual orientation as gay, lesbian, bisexual or a sexual orientation that is not heterosexual-representing 4% of the population of Canada 15 years of age and older.