Justice committee  The description I provided is a bit of a catch-all, so underneath that, there could be a lot of things that fall into those two broad categories.

Justice committee  I don't want to speculate too broadly on that because I think it's something that the courts would certainly turn their mind to if it came up as an issue in a particular case. I can say that I recall having heard that in the U.K. they did re-examine some sentences for individuals when there was no longer an offence.

Justice committee  I believe it falls under the Minister of Public Safety's portfolio for pardons.

Justice committee  I don't want to be extremely categorical in answering that question, because there could be a lot of factors at play. In a general way, a miscarriage of justice is often seen when any new information or evidence that comes to light calls into question the reliability of the verdict or the process that led to it.

Justice committee  The factors enumerated there would apply in both circumstances.

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  Certainly. It's true that there is no definition in the code for a miscarriage of justice, though it is a term that is used in several different sections, and I would say key sections, not to mention that this entire part of the Criminal Code that's being amended—part XXI.1—deals with miscarriages of justice.

Justice committee  In a conviction appeal, an applicant would not have to both establish that the verdict is unreasonable and that it's a miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice on its own can be a ground of appeal—

Justice committee  —or an error of law, for example. It's not that there has to be a combination of grounds. It can be a stand-alone basis to present....

Justice committee  It's possible.

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  I'll only comment as to the effect of what the amendment appears to accomplish or its impact on other provisions within the bill. Obviously, it's for the committee to decide if one approach versus the other is the better approach. I was listening a moment ago when Member Housefather was describing his amendment and I didn't see anything inaccurate in how he described it.

Justice committee  When you look at page 3 of the bill, the proposed subsection 696.4(4), “Exception”, currently says “Despite paragraph (3)(b)”. That means exceptions can be made when someone has not sought an appeal at the Supreme Court. NDP-1 proposes to change that to say, “Despite paragraph (3)(a)”, which applies to when someone has not sought an appeal at the court of appeal.

Justice committee  Yes. In terms of the description, to the extent that I can, I will.

Justice committee  As I see it, NDP-1 proposes to replace proposed subsection 696.4(4) entirely to allow the commission to decide that an application is admissible even if a court of appeal has not rendered a final judgment based on any factor that may have constrained the applicant’s ability or opportunity to appeal the finding or verdict.