Martin's Related Criminal Statutes, 2017-2018 Edition is fully annotated by three of Canada's preeminent authorities on criminal law
With annotations by: Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C., The Honourable Mr. Justice Marc Rosenberg, and Marie Henein
Martin's Related Criminal Statutes, 2017-2018 Edition is fully annotated by three of Canada's preeminent authorities on criminal law. Available in print and online in CriminalSource, it includes updated non-Criminal Code statutes and related case law. Thoroughly cross-referenced and updated annually, Martin's Related Criminal Statutes contains a winning combination of insight and information.
Case Law Highlights
- The exception set out in the Income Tax Act’s subs. 232(1) definition of “solicitor-client privilege” was held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, since it would have allowed for unreasonable seizure of information found in the accounting records of notaries and lawyers – this s. 8 Charter breach could not be saved under s. 1: Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec, 2016 SCC 20.
- According to the Federal Court of Appeal, the desire for uniformity in the application of federal legislation is not sufficient to disregard private law – the objective of ss. 8.1 and 8.2 of the Interpretation Act is to recognize the role of civil and common law in applying federal legislation, which reflects contemplation of diverging results across jurisdictions: French v. Canada, 2016 FCA 64.
- The standard of review of the decision to revoke a pardon under subs. 7(b) of the Criminal Records Act, on the basis of the person no longer being of good character, is reasonableness – in this instance, the board’s decision to revoke the appellant’s record suspension was held to be unreasonable in light of the board’s failure to obtain sufficient information underlying the allegation of no longer being of good conduct: M.Y. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 170.
- The Federal Court of Appeal held legislative decisions and actions, such as the development and introduction of bills, are not the proper subjects of an application for judicial review under s. 18 of the Federal Courts Act: Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development), 2016 FCA 311.
- The Supreme Court of Canada considered whether Parliament had intended an expansion of the elements of the bestiality offence when it replaced the word ‘bestiality’ for ‘buggery’, and held that, absent clear legislative intention to the contrary, a statute should not be interpreted as having substantially been changed: R. v. D.L.W., 2016 SCC 22.
- Paragraph 99(1)(f) of the Customs Act permits not only the opening of crates and other containers in order to examine the goods inside, but also the interference with the integrity of those goods, according to Ontario’s Court of Appeal: R. v. Lapple, 2016 ONCA 289.
- British Columbia’s Court of Appeal held extradition judges to have no jurisdiction to consider constitutional question that are not necessary to the exercise of their functions under s. 29 of the Extradition Act: United States of America v. Fraser, 2016 BCCA 444.
- According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction under s. 23 of the Federal Courts Act to decide whether the City’s by-laws applied to the company’s residential properties, since the claim was founded in constitutional law and should therefore be decided by the province’s superior court: Windsor (City) v. Canadian Transit Co., 2016 SCC 54.
The edition features recent amendments, including those to the following statutes and regulations:
- Corrections and Conditional Release Act
- Firearms Act
- Fisheries Act
- Income Tax Act
- Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act
- Suspicious Transaction Reporting Regulations
- Sex Offender Information Registration Act