Product details

Publisher: 
Carswell
Practice area: 
Criminal law & procedure
Jurisdiction: 
General
Publication date: 
2020-06-10
ISBN: 
9780779884964
Carswell

The 2020-2021 Annotated Contraventions Act

Availability: In Stock

The 2020-2021 Annotated Contraventions Act is a must-have reference to the 3,000 federal statutory and regulatory offenses that have been designated as contraventions under the contraventions legislation.

This book includes the full text of the Contraventions Act and Regulations, including the short-form descriptions of scheduled offenses. The author provides comprehensive annotations, including skillfully prepared commentary, applicable case law, and cross references to related Criminal Code sections. It also includes a systematic examination of companion amendments to federal statutes such as the Canada Evidence Act, Criminal Code, and the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

New in this edition:

Legislative highlights

  • The Contraventions Regulations, SOR/96-313 had been amended by SOR/2020-123 which adds Schedule XVII. These amendments designated as contraventions two new laser-related offences under the Canadian Aviation Regulations, with $1,000 fines imposable for each: (1) possession of a hand-held laser that exceeds the specified power output rating in a specified area; and (2) projecting or causing to be projected a directed light source into navigable airspace.
  • Regulation 2021-13 made changes to the Quarantine Act, including increased fine amounts for existing contraventions listed under Schedule XVI to the Contraventions Regulations. In addition, active or passive concealment of a case of illness onboard a conveyance, such as a cargo vessel, has been designated a contravention and may now be enforced through the ticketing procedure established under the Contraventions Act.

Case law highlights

  • Quebec (A.G.) v. 9147-0732 Quebec Inc. (S.C.C.) – The Supreme Court of Canada held s. 12 of the Charter not to protect corporations, since “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment” refers to physical or mental pain and suffering – these Charter protections are therefore those only human beings could enjoy.
  • R. v. Alisaleh (Ont. C.A.) – The Court of Appeal for Ontario held the trial judge to have erred by identifying the absence of embellishment or exaggeration in testimony as a factor applied to assess the credibility of the witness – given the core issue at trial was one of credibility, the appellate court ordered a new trial.
  • R. v. Nguyen (Ont. C.A.) – Although provincial offences legislation was intended to provide a speedy and efficient process for dealing with regulatory offences, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held the 18-month presumptive ceiling for single-stage provincial court proceedings, as established by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Jordan, to apply to proceedings under Part 1 of the Provincial Offences Act.
  • R. v. Sandoval (B.C. S.C.) – British Columbia’s Supreme Court held the justice to have erred by denying the defendant’s request for an adjournment – the justice opted to exercise the discretion to deny on the bases of additional costs to the public and of unfairness to the defendant, but the court found these bases not to have justified deprivation of the defendant’s right to have assistance of his counsel of choice at the trial.
  • R. v. Temple (Sask. Q.B.) – While the accused had entered an voluntary and unequivocal guilty plea for failing to report an accident to the police, he did not appreciate the consequences of doing this beyond the monetary fine and victim surcharge imposed, which included a further hefty surcharge and the mandatory enrolment in a driver improvement program –despite the accused’s ignorance of the extent of the administrative sanctions involved, Saskatchewan’s Court of Queen’s Bench held his guilty plea to have nevertheless been “informed”, and refused to allow him to withdraw it or to have it set aside.
  • Weisdorf v. Toronto (Ont. C.A.) – The appellate court held neither s. 7 nor s. 11(d) of the Charter to apply to city’s bylaw involving parking infractions – respectively, the process and imposition of related administrative penalties does not trigger the possibility of imprisonment or penal consequence, and persons subjected to such penalties are not charged criminal or quasi-criminal offences.
Carswell

The 2020-2021 Annotated Contraventions Act

Availability: In Stock

Description

The 2020-2021 Annotated Contraventions Act is a must-have reference to the 3,000 federal statutory and regulatory offenses that have been designated as contraventions under the contraventions legislation.

This book includes the full text of the Contraventions Act and Regulations, including the short-form descriptions of scheduled offenses. The author provides comprehensive annotations, including skillfully prepared commentary, applicable case law, and cross references to related Criminal Code sections. It also includes a systematic examination of companion amendments to federal statutes such as the Canada Evidence Act, Criminal Code, and the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

New in this edition:

Legislative highlights

  • The Contraventions Regulations, SOR/96-313 had been amended by SOR/2020-123 which adds Schedule XVII. These amendments designated as contraventions two new laser-related offences under the Canadian Aviation Regulations, with $1,000 fines imposable for each: (1) possession of a hand-held laser that exceeds the specified power output rating in a specified area; and (2) projecting or causing to be projected a directed light source into navigable airspace.
  • Regulation 2021-13 made changes to the Quarantine Act, including increased fine amounts for existing contraventions listed under Schedule XVI to the Contraventions Regulations. In addition, active or passive concealment of a case of illness onboard a conveyance, such as a cargo vessel, has been designated a contravention and may now be enforced through the ticketing procedure established under the Contraventions Act.

Case law highlights

  • Quebec (A.G.) v. 9147-0732 Quebec Inc. (S.C.C.) – The Supreme Court of Canada held s. 12 of the Charter not to protect corporations, since “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment” refers to physical or mental pain and suffering – these Charter protections are therefore those only human beings could enjoy.
  • R. v. Alisaleh (Ont. C.A.) – The Court of Appeal for Ontario held the trial judge to have erred by identifying the absence of embellishment or exaggeration in testimony as a factor applied to assess the credibility of the witness – given the core issue at trial was one of credibility, the appellate court ordered a new trial.
  • R. v. Nguyen (Ont. C.A.) – Although provincial offences legislation was intended to provide a speedy and efficient process for dealing with regulatory offences, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held the 18-month presumptive ceiling for single-stage provincial court proceedings, as established by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Jordan, to apply to proceedings under Part 1 of the Provincial Offences Act.
  • R. v. Sandoval (B.C. S.C.) – British Columbia’s Supreme Court held the justice to have erred by denying the defendant’s request for an adjournment – the justice opted to exercise the discretion to deny on the bases of additional costs to the public and of unfairness to the defendant, but the court found these bases not to have justified deprivation of the defendant’s right to have assistance of his counsel of choice at the trial.
  • R. v. Temple (Sask. Q.B.) – While the accused had entered an voluntary and unequivocal guilty plea for failing to report an accident to the police, he did not appreciate the consequences of doing this beyond the monetary fine and victim surcharge imposed, which included a further hefty surcharge and the mandatory enrolment in a driver improvement program –despite the accused’s ignorance of the extent of the administrative sanctions involved, Saskatchewan’s Court of Queen’s Bench held his guilty plea to have nevertheless been “informed”, and refused to allow him to withdraw it or to have it set aside.
  • Weisdorf v. Toronto (Ont. C.A.) – The appellate court held neither s. 7 nor s. 11(d) of the Charter to apply to city’s bylaw involving parking infractions – respectively, the process and imposition of related administrative penalties does not trigger the possibility of imprisonment or penal consequence, and persons subjected to such penalties are not charged criminal or quasi-criminal offences.