Justice Committee on Feb. 14th, 2012
Evidence of meeting #20 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was self-defence.
A recording is available from Parliament.
On the agenda
MPs speaking
Also speaking
- Hamish Stewart Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
- Greg Preston Edmonton Police Service, Legislative Amendments Committee of CACP, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
- Alex Scholten President, Canadian Convenience Stores Association
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
No, I have never practised law as a lawyer.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I have been teaching full-time at the University of Toronto since 1993.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Okay. And you've written three books on evidence law. I can't remember the other one.
12:15 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I've written on evidence. I've written a textbook on evidence as well as a treatise on evidence, and recently a book on section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I can tell you from my experience in relation to the criminal law that for the most part judges have a lot of flexibility and latitude relating to the interpretation. I would suggest in this particular case that they will indeed read in necessity and proportionality as primary concerns. Given, of course, common law for hundreds of years, given what's happened in the High Court of Australia and the Privy Council, which of course our courts continue to refer to and look at, I would suggest that given that both of those courts use both necessity and proportionality in self-defence, this will continue.
I did want to ask about a practical example. You mentioned in your paper that defence is not available where it should be. I've been racking my brain, because I did do five or six trials a week, and I couldn't think of one that would apply to what you're suggesting. I was hoping that you could give me an idea about that.
12:20 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I think you're right to say that it would be possible to interpret this clause as prioritizing necessity and proportionality over the other factors listed in proposed subsection 34.(2). I think the clause is open to that interpretation.
I think it would give clearer guidance to trial judges and juries if it were made explicit rather than being left in a list of factors. As Mr. Preston said, in response to a question about reasonableness, none of these concepts is perfectly precise, as law never is. I'm concerned that--
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Oh, you want the example.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I want a practical example. I'm more of a practical person, and I'm wondering if you could give me an example of the defence not being available where it should be, because I racked my brain on it.
12:20 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Imagine someone who is being pushed around, let's say, in a bar. So the defender's being pushed around by the attacker and the defender uses reasonable and proportionate force to push that person back and he gets charged with assault.
The force was necessary and proportional, just pushing and shoving, so it's not really that big a deal. But the proposed subclause says that the court may also consider the person's role in the incident. Does that give an opportunity for the prosecution to argue that the defender was being rude and obnoxious and therefore sparked the incident and should be deprived of self-defence?
I realize people may disagree about this example, but in my view those triggering incidents should not be considered part of the self-defence claim if they're at that low level of just being rude and obnoxious. I'm concerned that this may invite considerations that are extraneous to self-defence as I understand it.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm done. I love the ability to discuss with academics, I really do. Thank you, Professor Stewart.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Dave MacKenzie
Mr. Cotler, you were out of the room, but we'll let you back in this round.
February 14th, 2012 / 12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to compliment our witnesses.
My question would be to Professor Stewart, though it could be answered by any others. I appreciated the three elements you've put forward and also how the criteria could be a danger, could trump the three elements and result in an acquittal or even a conviction.
My question has to do with a controversy that arose out of a question put by Brian Jean to the minister about the defender firing warning shots at somebody coming onto his property and stealing things. The concern was whether the minister's response about the warning shots would be encouraging vigilantism. I think the minister was maybe taken out of context.
My question is on the example itself, and not necessarily the minister's response to it. How would your elements relate to that kind of situation?