Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Crime

Has Canada’s Criminal Code Lost Its Way?

Published

7 minute read

From The Audit

Laws have to be clear, consistent, and enforceable. Some of ours aren’t.

I am neither a lawyer nor the son of a lawyer and, thankfully, I’ve never been dragged through the justice system as a participant. But that doesn’t mean I can’t have thoughts.

My recent post on auto theft conviction rates ended with a suggestion that the size and complexity of Canada’s Criminal Code might be contributing to systemic problems with our courts – including suffocating inefficiencies. I’d like to explore that idea a bit more here.

First of all though, complexity is not the driver of most criminal behavior. You don’t need a law degree to know that you shouldn’t steal someone’s car or break his nose in a barroom brawl. And anyone with a grade three education should realize that government program fraud isn’t exactly saintly behaviour.

But overly complex laws can be responsible for some serious problems. Consider how clarity is actually a cornerstone of justice. In Canada, for instance, the Void for Vagueness Doctrine holds that a law is invalid if it’s too vague for the average person to understand. That’s because such laws fail to provide “fair notice” of what’s prohibited and clear standards for enforcement.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Similarly, if accused criminals can demonstrate that the complexity or ambiguity of the statute led them to reasonably believe their conduct was lawful, those laws might fail the necessary mens rea requirement for certain offences.

Unfortunate illustrations of this problem make appearances in some recent Liberal government legislation:

  • Online Harms Act (Bill C-63) fails to provide a clear definition for “online harm”. This makes it impossible for citizens to anticipate how the new Digital Safety Commission will enforce the law.
  • Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11) appears to require streaming services (like YouTube) to regulate user-generated content using an undefined standard.
  • Online News Act (Bill C-18) could affect how news is shared and accessed online, potentially influencing the availability and distribution of Canadian news​.

Of those, at least C-63 and C-11 – in their current form – could expose individuals to significant criminal and civil penalties without providing clarifying details.

Here’s another example. Section 423 of the Criminal Code prohibits intimidation:

423(1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing…blocks or obstructs a highway.

And Section 430 prohibits “mischief”, whose definition includes:

interfering with the lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property.

Just playfully attaching a sticker to someone’s car could lead to charges even if there was no intent to cause harm (by, say, damaging the car’s paint).

The problem here is that both Sections 423 and 430 are, to put it mildly, inconsistently enforced. This is something I’ve already discussed in my Limits of Legal Protest post. Participants in recent pro-Hamas protests flagrantly blocked lawful access to roads, parks, and public buildings for weeks at a time in cities across the country. That’s a clear Section 423 and 430 violation. And yet, of the many hundreds of participants, only a handful were ever arrested and, to my knowledge, none was charged with mischief or intimidation.

Now I know exactly what you’re thinking: “Come on Clinton, what about 430(7)?”

No person commits mischief within the meaning of this section by reason only that he attends at or near or approaches a dwelling-house or place for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information.

Weren’t those protesters just there to communicate information (“from the river to the sea…”)? Well I’m actually not sure how much meaningful communication was happening at those gatherings. Dialog didn’t seem to be their primary focus. But the legal issue wasn’t where they chose to stand, it was the fact that they actively and intentionally prevented the lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property – both private and public.

Now, in that context, is it reasonable to prosecute any acts of mischief or intimidation anywhere in Canada? Couldn’t a person reasonably argue that he was under the informed opinion that Canadian police largely ignored such offences?

As the Criminal Code grows, its internal complexity is bound to increase along with it. Comparing the PDF version of the June 15, 2011 version of the Code (1,025 pages) to the most recent version  (1,349 pages) gives us a sense of the changes that are happening in both government and society as a whole. More than 226,000 words (in both French and English) were added over that time, a 31 percent increase. Revisions included updates concerning firearms and weapons, remote proceedings, indigenous rights, organized crime and terrorism, and palliative care.

All that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But when poorly-written legislation (like C-11) makes it into the books and perfectly fine legislation (like Section 430) is enforced unevenly, then we’re asking for trouble. A competent government should be able to do better than that.

Refer a friend

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

2025 Federal Election

RCMP Confirms It Is ‘Looking Into’ Alleged Foreign Threat Following Liberal Candidate Paul Chiang Comments

Published on

Sam Cooper

The confirmation followed a day of escalating pressure on Canadian law enforcement after The Bureau revealed that the UK-based human rights organization Hong Kong Watch sent a formal letter to RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme, calling for a criminal investigation into Chiang’s reported remarks.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police confirmed late Monday it is actively reviewing the controversy surrounding Liberal MP Paul Chiang’s alleged remarks that appeared to endorse delivering a political rival to a foreign government in exchange for a bounty.

In a statement sent to The Bureau, the RCMP said: “Foreign actor interference, including instances of transnational repression, continues to be a pervasive threat in Canada. The RCMP takes all such reports and allegations seriously and — in close partnership with intelligence, law enforcement and regulatory agencies — dedicates significant resources to combatting and investigating criminal activity related to foreign interference in Canada’s democratic processes.”

“The RCMP is looking into the matter,” the statement continued, “however no specific details can be provided at this time.”

The confirmation followed a day of escalating pressure on Canadian law enforcement after The Bureau revealed that the UK-based human rights organization Hong Kong Watch sent a formal letter to RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme, calling for a criminal investigation into Chiang’s reported remarks. The comments, made during a January meeting with Chinese-language journalists, suggested that Conservative candidate Joe Tay could be brought to the Chinese Consulate in Toronto to claim a bounty placed on him by the Hong Kong police under Beijing’s National Security Law.

The organization alleged the remarks could constitute “counselling to commit kidnapping” under Canada’s Criminal Code. In their letter, Hong Kong Watch also referenced the Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act, which prohibits attempts to coerce or intimidate individuals for the benefit of a foreign state.

While the RCMP’s statement did not confirm the launch of a formal investigation, it emphasized that if “criminal or illegal activities occurring in Canada [are] found to be backed by a foreign state, it is within the RCMP’s mandate to investigate this activity.”

The RCMP said it does not typically disclose information related to ongoing investigations unless charges are laid. Nor will it confirm which individuals may be under protective watch.

Earlier Monday, Tay confirmed that he contacted the RCMP over concerns for his personal safety even before Chiang’s comments became public. Chiang, a former police officer and Liberal candidate in Markham–Unionville, has apologized for the remarks, calling them a “terrible lapse in judgment.”

Meanwhile, more than 40 Hong Kong diaspora organizations based in Canada and abroad issued a joint statement condemning Chiang’s remarks and calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney to remove him as a candidate. Carney told reporters in Toronto that Chiang still has his “confidence,” and described the incident as a “teachable moment.”

The RCMP said its “overarching priority is the safety and security of the public,” and encouraged anyone who feels threatened online or in person to report such incidents to their local police. In cases of immediate danger, individuals are urged to call 911.

The statement also pointed to the existence of protective mechanisms for election candidates, including through Elections Canada and the federal government.

More to come

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

London-Based Human Rights Group Urges RCMP to Investigate Liberal MP for Possible Counselling of Kidnapping

Published on

 

Hong Kong Watch says MP Paul Chiang’s remarks about delivering rival Joe Tay to the Chinese Consulate may amount to criminal conduct under Canada’s Criminal Code.

On Monday, more than 40 Hong Kong diaspora organizations across Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany issued a joint statement condemning Chiang’s remarks and calling for immediate action from Prime Minister Mark Carney.

Continue Reading

Trending

X