RSS FeedThe legality of G20 police cordons in Toronto
Toronto is a changed city this weekend. Various police forces have cordoned off a big part of downtown searching and checking IDs of those wishing to enter. We in Canada are not used to ID checks and car searches on public streets. Canadians are usually free to walk in public areas, and the police cannot stop people and force them to show ID or even answer questions without a good reason to suspect them of a crime. When a big part of a crowded and bustling city becomes off limits, many people will probably wonder if G20 is worth it. Many lawyers will perhaps ask a different question: does the police have the power to cordon off downtown Toronto. The answer is yes.
The simplest and shortest explanation is in s. 10.1(2) of the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act (FMIOA), which charges the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) with the security of “intergovernmental conferences” in Canada. Section 10.1(2) of the act expressly grants the RCMP the power “to take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.” The Integrated Security Unit that includes the RCMP is responsible for securing G8/G20 events. The RCMP’s role is “the Summit site and surrounding areas,” so presumably it is the RCMP that has cordoned off a part of downtown Toronto. It has a statutory power to do so.
An Act of Parliament grants the RCMP this power to cordon off streets. That ends the real-life analysis. But imagine there was no law like that or imagine the Toronto Police tried to cordon off a few blocks in Toronto. Would the police still have the cordon-off power? This is an interesting theoretical question because many police powers do not come from statute, and it’s important to know when the police exceed their authority. The FMIOA doesn’t apply to Toronto police, and Ontario’s Police Services Act and City of Toronto Act don’t grant the cordon-off power to the Toronto Police Service. (The FMIOA presumably allows the federal government to delegate RCMP’s cordon-off power to other police services (s. 10.1(4)), but let’s pretend it’s not the case.)
In Ontario, police powers come not only from statute (express acts of the provincial legislature or the federal parliament) but also from common law (courts’ judgements). Police existed before any act of parliament incorporated it, and during that period courts had the final word on police powers. When legislatures recognized police powers under statute, sometimes they continued police powers that existed at common law. Under s. 42(3) of the Police Services Act, “[a] police officer has the powers and duties ascribed to a constable at common law.” This provision allows the courts to continue to adjudicate police powers not expressly granted by the legislature.
When Canadian courts resolve a dispute in which a complainant questions the existence of a police power, they apply the Waterfield test, named after an English case that explained police powers at common law (also known as the ancillary police powers). A court applying this test would see first if a police action interfered with personal liberty or property without statutory authority. If yes, the court would see if “(a) such conduct falls within the general scope of any duty imposed by statute or recognised at common law and (b) whether such conduct, albeit within the general scope of such a duty, involved an unjustifiable use of powers associated with the duty.” (R. v. Waterfield [1963] 3 All E.R. 659 (C.C.A.) at 661). Basically, at common law the police can do anything necessary to discharge their lawful duties as long as the use of their powers is justified.
Judicial precedents guide us as to what is justified. For example, in Knowlton v. R., a 1975 Supreme Court decision, the court held that cordoning off the sidewalk in front of a hotel hosting a foreign leader is justified. A photographer who tried to break through the cordon was arrested and charged with obstruction of police. Part of the reason for closing the sidewalk was a previous assault on this foreign leader in another Canadian town. This and the fact that everyone knew about the widely publicized assault helped the court conclude that the cordoning off was justified even if the police didn’t explain their legal authority to the photographer. The court held that the photographer should have known the police had a duty to protect the foreign dignitary in these circumstances. The photographer also had a chance to get his pass but missed it.
I haven’t heard of a court case that looked at something on the scale of G20 events in Toronto, but Knowlton gives us some idea what a court would say. It would emphasize the history of violence at such events and the massive publicity reaching probably every resident of Canada. Closing off the downtown core is not the same as blocking a sidewalk but the number of dignitaries is many times higher and it’s common to believe that the world is less secure today than 35 years ago. The courts would likely defer to police judgement on the size of the cordoned area given the courts’ relative ignorance of operational security issues. The reasoning will be similar to the rationale behind s. 10.1(2) of the FMIOA. The police would tell the courts that cordoning off a chunk of downtown Toronto is necessary to protect foreign leaders and keep order and the way they do it is justified. The court would likely accept that.
Presumably, if cordoning off passes the Waterfield test, it will also be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. (I am not going into detail on this, but see R. v. Clayton, 2007 SCC 32 for a related discussion.) Of course, unless a court finds that we have a Charter right to freely go downtown, s. 1 won’t even come up.
I am not happy with the G20 summit’s impact on Toronto. It will hurt downtown businesses (except hotels), cause traffic chaos, and bring clashes between the police and protesters. Having to show ID and submit to searches to move around your own city is a sacrifice of our liberties and it simply looks bad in a democracy. Walls separating city quarters are notorious in history, and we probably don’t want any resemblance here. But the police likely have full legal authority to cordon off streets for the G20 summit, and any challenge to such cordons should be not legal but political.
(Post sponsored by AdviceScene)
What can the mayor of Toronto really do?
Toronto will go to the polls to elect its mayor on October 25 this year. There is a lot of media interest in mayoral candidates and scandals surrounding some of them. The incumbent mayor, David Miller, also attracted media attention and intense feelings among both his supporters and detractors. But is the mayor’s job really that important? What actual powers does the mayor of Toronto have? If we look at the law, the answer is rather surprising. Despite all the attention, the mayor of Toronto doesn’t decide much, and the city’s governance is mostly in the hands of the city council and ultimately the provincial legislature.
The word “Toronto” has two meanings: a place and a corporation. The second meaning refers to the organization that governs the city. This organization is a special corporation created by Ontario legislature through the City of Toronto Act. As a creature of statute, the city has only powers granted by the province. The same statute grants powers to the mayor and to the city council and authorizes the city council to delegate its powers to the mayor. That’s why to get a general idea of the mayor’s powers, you need to review both the City of Toronto Act and city council by-laws.
The city, the mayor, and the city council must exercise their powers within the limits set by Ontario legislature. All three owe their existence to provincial statute and can be abolished by provincial statute. The 1997 ruling in East York v. Ontario confirmed that municipalities do not have an “autonomous” constitutional status and are subject to the will of provincial parliaments. In that case, a group of Toronto residents and some of the municipalities making up the Metro Toronto area challenged amalgamation of cities around the old Toronto into the megacity where we live today. Their challenge failed and the appeal was dismissed.
In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that the city of Vancouver may not boycott Shell for its cooperation with the apartheid South Africa. The Court’s majority decided that such boycott was not for a municipal purpose as set by British Columbia legislation, specifically the Vancouver Charter, which is the equivalent of the City of Toronto Act. These cases show that municipalities and their mayors are subject to provinces’ will and must act within the authority given by provinces.
The word “mayor” appears only five times in the City of Toronto Act. The statute grants the mayor only two roles: the head of the city council and the “chief executive officer of the City.” In the first role, the mayor’s powers are “to preside over meetings of council so that its business can be carried out efficiently and effectively; to provide leadership to council; to represent the City at official functions; to carry out the duties of the head of council;” and to give the council certain information and recommendations. As the city’s CEO, the mayor must “uphold and promote the purposes of the City; promote public involvement in the City’s activities; act as the representative of the City both within and outside the City, and promote the City locally, nationally and internationally; participate in and foster activities that enhance the economic, social and environmental well-being of the City and its residents.”
The powers of the highly-contested mayor’s office appear almost ceremonial. The mayor doesn’t control the police, cannot influence legislation in his jurisdiction as Premiers or the Prime Minister can, and cannot issue executive orders. And the mayor doesn’t run the city’s operations: it’s the city manager’s job.
The mayor does have one truly great power, but only in emergencies. The City of Toronto Act allows the city council to delegate its legislative authority in limited circumstances. Under Chapter 59, Article VI of the Toronto Municipal Code, the mayor takes over the council’s legislative authority in emergencies. That’s what happened in 1999, when then mayor Mel Lastman called in the Canadian Forces after a massive snowfall in Toronto blocked ambulances from reaching patients.
All in all, Ontario legislature leaves it for the city council to govern Toronto. The council is like a corporate board of directors and the city manager’s office is like managers of a corporation. The mayor can’t do much without the council or the city manager. But the nature and the powers of the mayor’s office certainly make for a lot of publicity, which probably explains why there is so much hoopla over Toronto mayor’s elections this fall.
Pulat Yunusov is a Toronto civil litigation lawyer.
(Post sponsored by AdviceScene)
How to secede from Ontario
So what if Toronto became a province? Why would that be a bad idea? Regardless of the arguments for and against, Toronto can never become a province unless there is a lawful way to that goal, and there are several. In any case, separation will require a referendum in the city. If Toronto wishes to leave, Ontario will have to start good-faith negotiations. And even if the talks break down, there seems to be a constitutional way for Toronto to become a province without Ontario’s consent.
First, any decision to separate will require a referendum in Toronto. Just a vote in the city council will not be enough because the issue is so momentous. We have some legal precedent on this issue because the independence question was raised in referendums several times in Quebec. In the Reference re Secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court said that a successful referendum will give necessary legitimacy to Quebec government’s effort to secede. I don’t see any other way to give legitimacy to the effort of Toronto to form its own province.
Second, if the people of Toronto say yes to becoming a province in a referendum, Ontario will be under an obligation to negotiate with representatives of the city. This also follows from the Reference re Secession of Quebec. The difference, of course, is that Quebec has original sovereignty as a province, and the City of Toronto is legally a creature of an Ontario statute. But in essence, the same principles should apply: if a huge number of people in a large community want something, the government should listen and talk. Besides, Toronto is not just a city: it’s older than both Ontario and Canada. Its population and economic output are bigger than population and GDP of nine Canadian provinces. It’s a critical part of the country, and if it speaks loudly about its own destiny, Ontario has a legal duty to negotiate.
There are at least three possible outcomes of these negotiations:
1. The Legislative Assembly of Ontario passes a law granting unique and broad powers to the City of Toronto. The new authority should approach that of a province. The law should be a super-statute like the Ontario’s Human Rights Code. It should prevail over any other Ontario law. The problem with this solution is that Queen’s Park will keep the power to change or repeal this statute despite its “super” attribute. Unless there is way to bind the Ontario legislature with stringent amendment limitations like those found in the Canadian constitution, the super-statute will last only as long as the political will of the provincial parliament.
2. Ontario adopts a written constitution with amendment restrictions similar to those of the federal constitution. The new powers of the City of Toronto become a part of the Ontario constitution subject to amendment only in rare cases of clear consent of a great majority of Torontonians and Ontarians. I have no idea how to make this work. When Canada needed a constitution binding on its own parliament, it had to ask the UK parliament to pass a special law. It’s unclear how the federal parliament could play the part the UK parliament once played for Canada, because a future Ontario government could challenge that intervention on federalism grounds. How a province can adopt a binding constitution is a great topic for legal scholars, but I don’t see a practical way to do it.
3. Canada amends its own constitution making Toronto a full province. That’s the best way for the city. It will ensure more legitimacy and legal certainty so Toronto can focus on its future instead of endless litigation with Queen’s Park. Sections 42 and 38(1) of The Constitution Act, 1982 set the procedure for forming a new province: consent of the Parliament of Canada and legislatures of at least two thirds of Canadian provinces that together have at least half of Canada’s population. In my reading of the Constitution, Ontario’s consent won’t even be necessary, but if Ontario says no, then Quebec’s and probably BC’s yes will be required. Imagine the headlines: “Quebec helps Toronto secede from Ontario!”
Hopefully, it will not come to this, and the growing crisis in the relations between Toronto and Ontario will be resolved. But if Toronto is determined to get a special status to reflect its role in Ontario and Canada, it certainly has lawful paths to that objective. What’s needed is the political will on both sides.
(Post sponsored by AdviceScene)
Street Racing Laws Ruled Unconstitutional… Again!
For the second time, Ontario’s new anti-street racing laws have been deemed unconstitutional. This time Justice Peter Wright, has thrown out charges by indicating the unconstitutionality of the new law.
Justice Peter West, a provincial court judge in Newmarket, found that an accused driver’s Charter rights are “clearly infringed” by the potential jail time because the law doesn’t permit the person to put forward a defence.
“There is no air of reality to the Crown’s submissions that a defendant charged with stunt driving under section 172 of the Highway Traffic Act … has an available defence of due diligence,” West stated in a written ruling.
“The possibility of the imposition of up to six months imprisonment thereby renders this section unconstitutional.”
I can see this going up the judicial ladder. We shall keep our pedal off the metal, until this is decided. It is however, reported that police agencies still plan on enforcing the law.
Hate crime in London, Ontario
A woman had her head covering torn off and was pelted with anti-Arab slurs in an attempted stabbing London police are treating as a hate crime.
Canada’s own version of SEC to be vetted by Supreme Court
Ottawa to seek top court ruling on single securities regulator
Unlike the US, Canada doesn’t have a national securities regulator. Canadian constitution is somewhat equivocal in its division of powers between provinces and Ottawa. It sounds like a good idea for the federal government to refer its plans to the Supreme Court before spending money and influencing securities markets. Especially, since one province is not happy about these plans at all.
Les Whittington writes for the Toronto Star:
[Flaherty] has been supported by the province of Ontario and many other provinces. But the province of Quebec is against a single regulator, which it considers an infringement on its political autonomy under the constitution.
Student-teacher love can be a serious crime in Canada
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (I am a law student). The text below contains only my understanding of the applicable law. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your particular situation. Do not assume you can make any decisions based on this text. I do not intend this text to apply to anyone’s situation. This text is not legal advice. I am not qualified to give legal advice anyway. The purpose of this text is to encourage debate and create awareness of certain criminal offences. Please consult a lawyer if you need legal advice or help with your particular situation.
Our society is obsessed with sex. Not just in a dirty sense. We are probably as much into sex as we are afraid of it, and one proof of our fear of sex is in the criminal code. Sexual assault, sexual interference, sexual exploitation, invitation to sexual touching are serious crimes in our legal system. We want to punish sexual offenders because we want to protect ourselves and especially our women and children. Traditionally, the predators have been men, but more and more often the police arrest women for sexual crimes. I wrote about a case in Georgia where a trial court gave a female teacher ten years for a mutual love affair with a girl-student. The girl reached the age of consent but the court ignored it because the older woman was her teacher. A few days ago, an Ontario judge sentenced a female teacher for a love affair with a student. If the older women didn’t plead guilty, this case would be almost identical to the case in Georgia, except for the brutally harsh sentence. But the intricate details of the Ontario case are different enough to make this story a lesson for all adults—not just for teachers.
Ontario AG responds to continuing Legal Aid boycott
The boycott of legal aid by the Criminal Lawyer’s Association continues. I reported a few days ago that the CLA would not endorse the government’s plan to inject $150 million into Legal Aid on the basis that the funds did not come close to making up for losses against inflation that criminal lawyers have endured since 1987 (among other reasons).
Below is the latest letter from Ontario’s Attorney General Chris Bentley in response to the CLA’s rejection of the plan.
—
Dear Member of the Bar:
As many of you know, legal aid has been an ongoing passion of mine, throughout my 25 years as a criminal defence lawyer and during my time in government. That’s why I was pleased to announce that the McGuinty government is investing $150 million over the next four years. This 21% increase to Legal Aid Ontario’s base funding means that Legal Aid Ontario will receive an additional $60 million in year four and every year thereafter. This investment means that the government’s contribution to Legal Aid will rise from $288 million per year to $348 million per year.
We understand that to get legal aid to a better place, we have to properly support lawyers.
This is the largest investment that the province has made since the beginning of legal aid. We are committed to ensuring that the poorest Ontarians get the legal support that they need, when they need it and in the way that they need it. I am confident that the Bar shares these goals. This investment will support poverty alleviation. It will also help drive significant reforms in our family and criminal courts—which will themselves help Ontarians needing assistance.
The transformation plan targets four key areas: creating a central role for legal aid clinics in poverty alleviation; fostering a faster, less confrontational and simpler family justice system; promoting justice effectiveness through the use of block fees; and improving the approach to big cases.
The members of the Bar, including the Alliance for Sustainable Legal Aid, asked us for two things: an additional investment and an assurance that they would not simply be presented with a reform plan that was a fait accompli. As a result, we will immediately establish an Advisory Group in each of five areas: family, clinics, large criminal case management, standard criminal cases and immigration law. Your advice as front-line service providers, on the advisory groups will inform how best to achieve our mutual goals.
There are a few parts of our announcement that I would like to clarify:
- We have been explicitly given direction to develop and seek approval of an indexation mechanism. This has always been part of our legal aid renewal plan. The implementation would take place in 2013 (our investment rises every year until then);
- We understand that appropriate support is required for service providers to assist Ontario’s vulnerable and are open to the Advisory Working Group’s advice on the best way to provide that support so that we get experienced counsel in family and criminal matters. There was a specific commitment to look at models such as the British Columbia big case model if the advisory group so advised;
- This historic investment in legal aid is not the government’s “opening proposal” as some have suggested. This is the single largest increase to legal aid funding ever in Ontario. In fact, it is one of the largest single justice sector investments in history. The discussion from here forward needs to be about how to make the funding work as well as possible; an over 20% increase to LAO’s base budget is unprecedented and significant in the best of times. It is extraordinary in these times.
- The Major Case Management Office is being created to provide the required accountability and quality control that the Bar has supported. The government is responsible to ensure that cases progress and that the rights of the accused are protected.
- Legal Aid is responsible to ensure that the accused who need counsel to defend themselves on serious charges but cannot afford them have access to counsel. To the extent that members of the private bar remain unavailable to do these cases, a large case office will have to develop the permanent capacity to do them. The capacity and role of this office, will, therefore, depend, on the availability of private counsel.
We are committed to a legal aid system that provides support to Ontarians when they are at their most vulnerable. This investment will ensure that a vibrant legal aid system is able to assist those in need, now and in the future.
Sincerely,
[Original Signed By Hon. Chris Bentley]
Hon. Chris Bentley
Attorney General
Legal Aid boycott to continue
I spoke too soon when I congratulated the Criminal Lawyers Association on convincing Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley to boost funding to Legal Aid Ontario to the tune of $150-million over the next four years.
It turns out that the battle will be continuing. Despite the funding boost, the Criminal Lawyers Association board has voted in favour of maintaining the boycott of legal aid.
Frank Addario, President of the CLA, argues that the cash infusion is merely a stop-gap measure which does not address the underlying concerns of the criminal defence bar. In a communique to Association members, Addario pointed out that when broken down, legal aid lawyers would be receiving a raise of 5% or less over the next four years.
This wouldn’t come close to correcting the income disparity between legal aid lawyers and Crown attorneys. It also wouldn’t address the many years of funding freeze and funding rollback that sparked the boycott in the first place. Addario explains:
If the population, the crime rate, the complexity of cases and inflation all remain stable in the next 4 years a 20% increase in funding will not eliminate the 60% loss against inflation since 1987.
Besides the money, there were other important reasons for the board’s decision to maintain the boycott. Expect a formal announcement later this week or next.
Legal Aid to get a much-needed funding boost
After years of neglect, the Legal Aid system in Ontario has been scheduled for an overhaul. On Tuesday, Attorney General Chris Bentley will announce $150 million in new funding for Legal Aid, as well as significant changes to the way the system works.
Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) is an independent, publically funded organization which is dedicated to improving access to justice in this province. With a current budget of about $288 million, the infusion of $150 million into the system over the next four years represents a huge boost.
Kudos are due to the Criminal Lawyers Association and senior defence lawyers across Ontario for taking dramatic steps to raise the public’s awareness of the ongoing injustices in the Legal Aid system. Kudos are equally due to AG Chris Bentley for listening and taking action to correct them.
Many members of the public don’t realize what legal aid money is actually spent on. The new funding will not only be used for criminal defence. In fact, much of the money will probably be directed towards family law services, such as helping people below the poverty line protect the best interests of their children. Among other things, LAO also funds: community clinics (such as the one I work for), duty counsel in court, aboriginal services, compensation for injured workers, tenant rights protection, compensation for victims of crime, and other victims services.
As for the actual changes, we can only speculate until they are officially announced on Tuesday.
However, Bentley has hinted that he will be moving towards a block-fee system rather than an hourly rate for criminal lawyers. Interestingly, this is the system that was previously in place; it was rejected in favour of the hourly wage with maximum hour caps for particular types of work, such as trials, bail hearings, and Charter applications. The block-fee system was criticized for creating an incentive to work as many cases as possible while putting in as few hours of work as possible into each. It remains to be seen how the AG will address these concerns.
It is also expected that in the family law arena, changes will promote more collaborative dispute resolution, such as mediation. This would be a positive step that would free up court resources and make the family law process much less adversarial.
Another change which I am personally hoping for is a Provincial program under s. 802.1 of the Criminal Code that would allow student legal aid clinics to work on summary conviction cases which are punishable by more than 6 months in jail. Having smaller clinics do this type of work would relieve some of the burden on more experienced lawyers, who could direct their efforts towards defending more serious offences.
See also: $150m More Legal Aid for Ontario
The heavy hand of family law
Ontario’s “zero tolerance” policy on domestic violence has come into question following an unusual court case involving an Orangeville-area woman who was charged with assault after joking in emails that she could solve her marital problems with a gun, if only she could get one.
Alison Shaw, 40, was forced out of her home and ordered to stay away from her three children after her estranged husband claimed to have been “frightened” by the online missive, which followed what a judge described as a “one-punch bar fight” over a month earlier in an area Legion hall.
Problems finding rental housing?
Rights commission targets `blatant discrimination’ in rental-housing market
There’s obvious discrimination in rental housing, says the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s annual report released yesterday, identifying the problem as a key area that needs immediate intervention.
