Currie Law – Employment Law, Criminal Law, Civil Litigation in Mississauga, Oakville, Milton, Campbellville, Georgetown, Hamilton, Burlington and the Niagara Region

Please click here to view the chart containing a list of many criminal offences, the criminal code section involved, penalties and other related information.

The chart may contain valuable information pertaining to your case. Please consult the detailed chart and contact us if you would like to discuss your case in more detail.

The detailed chart contains information on the following offences:

Full chart available by clicking here.

Bail

In some criminal cases, after the police arrest you, you will be let out on a promise or what is called a recognizance, to come back to Court at the appointed time.  In other cases, the police will keep you in jail until you appear before a Court to obtain bail.  If you are arrested for a crime, it is very important to speak with a lawyer as soon as possible.  The outcome of a bail hearing can mean the difference between enjoying your freedom or remaining in custody between the arrest and the trial of your case.

Bail hearings are not treated lightly at my firm, we prepare for them carefully and properly.  For example, we may interview and recommend an appropriate surety – who is a person who will be responsible for ensuring that you meet all of the conditions of bail.  My goal is to achieve the most positive result – a reasonable bail with reasonable conditions.

In Ontario, it can sometimes take almost a year to get a trial date.  Unfortunately, many people who have a good defence end up pleading guilty to charges, before retaining a lawyer, rather than sitting in jail awaiting trial when they’re not granted bail.  This leaves them with a criminal record that can impair their ability to get a job, a loan, a place to live or travel outside of the country.  A prior record also leaves you vulnerable to stiffer potential penalties for any future criminal conviction.

Defendants can be released on bail for any criminal offence.  However, recent changes in the law regarding bail have made it more difficult to get bail for certain offences.  An experienced criminal lawyer can increase your chances of a positive result at a bail hearing.  You may be detained in custody until your trial if the prosecutor (the Crown Attorney) can show there are reasonable grounds for believing that:

• You might not appear as required by the Court
• The protection or safety of the public is necessary
• You might interfere with the administration of justice (by contacting witnesses), or
• You might commit further criminal offences.

A surety is a person who agrees in writing (and will likely be interviewed and questioned on the witness stand) to be responsible for you until your case is concluded.  Your surety will be interviewed or questioned to determine his or her stability and assets.  A surety’s stability is shown by:

• Length of time at a current job
• The type of job
• Length of time in the province or the community
• Whether he or she owns a home
• Family and community roots
• Relationship to the accused
• Whether or not the surety has a criminal record

In my experience, it is much more desirable and much easier to ensure that all of the necessary information is before the Court at the first bail hearing.  If you are unsuccessful in your first bail hearing, doing an appeal will be time-consuming, expensive, and it will be more difficult to succeed to get you out on bail.  For this reason we recommend that you hire an experienced criminal lawyer to assist you if you are arrested and facing a bail hearing.

Youth Criminal Justice System

When a young person is charged with an offence, there are different considerations imposed by the statute that govern the consequences for the offending behaviour.  The objectives of the Youth Criminal Justice System are to prevent crime, ensure meaningful consequences for offending behaviour and rehabilitate and reintegrate the young person.  Unlike the previous legislation (Young Offender Act), the Youth Criminal Justice Act states that the purpose of sentencing is to hold a young person accountable for the offence committed by imposing meaningful consequences and promoting the rehabilitation and reintegration of the young person.  Some offences in the Criminal Code had a minimum sentence and some offences have a maximum sentence, depending upon the nature of the offence.  The YCJA applies to those under the age of 18 at the time of committing the offence.  The focus of sentencing for young persons often stresses rehabilitation and the reintegration of a young offender back into his community as opposed to more punitive sentences.  Young persons charged with criminal offences are dealt with in Youth Court.  In Ontario, Youth Court are judges of the Ontario Court, Provincial Divisions.  These are the same judges who also deal with certain adult offences. If you are a youth charged with an offence it is important that you contact a criminal lawyer with experience in youth matter.

Alternate Measures or Diversion

Young persons charged with relatively minor criminal offences, such as shoplifting, may be eligible for Alternative Measures programs.  In the appropriate case, upon discussion with the Crown or submissions to the Court the criminal charges may be withdrawn or stayed upon a young person’s undertaking to do community service work, write apologies, make restitution, write papers or other public service. Again, contact an experienced criminal lawyer to discuss your options if you are a youth arrested for a crime.

If you have been charged with a criminal offence, it is generally not a good idea to give up the right to silence until or unless you have retained legal counsel.  Generally, you will not talk your way out of being charged or released on bail. The decision to charge you or not is based on the evidence that the police gather.  The easiest way for the police to collect evidence against you is to get you to talk to them.  If the police want to talk to you, they probably are looking for a confession or for you to implicate yourself. You don’t have to talk to the police.  You do not have to give in to their pressure to provide information once you have been charged with a criminal offence. This is referred to in Canadian criminal law as the right to silence. It is a principle of fundamental justice guaranteed by Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The purpose is to allow a person to make meaningful choices about whether to speak or remain silent.  Anything that you say may find its way before the Courts as evidence against you. But don’t think that you will be able to have a Court consider your explanation to the police by making a statement. The rules of evidence are such that statements favourable to the accused in a criminal trial rarely get before the Court, but incriminating or vague or ambiguous statements are often used against you in Court. Being arrested or questioned by the police is a stressful situation and out of your fear and confusion you may misstate things. It is best to rely on your right to keep silent until you’ve met with your criminal lawyer and obtained the best legal advice you can find.

In Canadian law your silence cannot be used to prejudice you.  No presumptions or negative connotations can be made against a defendant because he or she remained silent.  The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that every Canadian has the right to remain silent until they obtain legal representation.  This means when you are arrested under the suspicion of having committed a crime, you are under no legal obligation to answer questions by the police.  That doesn’t mean that you won’t be pressured by the police to provide information.Nor does it mean that the police will stop asking questions or making insinuations, once you tell the police that you do not wish to speak without your lawyer,   But the right to silence is yours!  Questioning of persons in Canada before or after arrest is permitted.  Statements from accused persons form an important part of any police investigation and therefore persons being investigated for or charged with a criminal offence in Canada are best advised to remain silent.  You may feel that a statement may help you or be in your interests but it usually is not.

This legal right is intended to prevent confessions obtained by law enforcement through threats, violence or torture from being admitted as evidence in a Court of law.

Police are allowed to use all sorts of techniques, including tricks, during the investigation to encourage a person to talk about the circumstances of an alleged criminal offence.  Therefore accused persons must be strong in responding to continued questioning by repeatedly saying they want to exercise their right to silence.  The Courts in Canada have said that the obligation is on the person being questioned by the police not to say anything – not for the police to stop asking questions.  It’s sometimes very difficult to be silent because the natural desire is to respond to questions about wrongdoing.  Speaking to police during the investigation of an alleged offence, at the very least, gives the prosecution advance notice of your defence and more importantly, can provide evidence that will be used against you in your criminal trial.  What you must remember is that from the first moment the police talk to you, they will be looking for evidence to use against you to present to the Court at trial.  Anything you say to the police can end up being used against you in Court. Many times silence is golden!

Click here and fill out our CASE EVALUATOR

Currie Law represents clients of other offences including:

• Communicating for the purposes of prostitution
• Firearms offences
• Unlawfully possessing firearms
• Fraud
• Identity theft
• Dangerous driving
• Motor vehicle offences
• Assault with a weapon
• Assault causing bodily harm
• Bail and judicial interim release
• Failure to appear
• Breach of bail
• Breach of recognizance
• Impaired driving
• Driving prohibition cases
• Sexual assault

Click here and fill out our CASE EVALUATOR

In most criminal harassment cases, the complainant contacts the police with information about the actions of the accused which triggers an investigation that may lead to charges being laid.  A pattern of behaviour must be demonstrated.  The conduct prohibited as criminal harassment is:

1. Repeatedly following a person place to place; or
2. Repeatedly communicating with a person directly or indirectly; or
3. Watching them in either their home or place of work; or
4. Watching them in either their home or place of work of someone they know; or
5. Engaging in threatening conduct directed at the complainant or their family.

To prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution must show a pattern of behaviour that falls into one of the above-noted categories.  They must show that the complainant, as a result of the behaviour of the accused, feared for their own safety or of anyone known to them and that the accused knew or was reckless or was wilfully blind as to whether the complainant was harassed.

The judge must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused engaged in the prohibitive conduct, that the complainant was indeed harassed, that the defendant was at a minimum wilfully blind or reckless as to whether the complainant was harassed, and that the conduct caused the complainant to reasonably fear.

If a criminal lawyer can raise a reasonable doubt about any of the essential elements of the offence, the accused is entitled to be found not guilty.

Click here and fill out our CASE EVALUATOR

Spousal and domestic assault allegations:

The Attorney-General has issued a policy directive to Crown Attorneys to prosecute all domestic and spousal assault allegations if it appears there is a likelihood of successful prosecution.  In some cases it may be appropriate to follow this policy but the problem is, is that it is a rigid policy that may fail to address often complex family dynamics.

Typically domestic allegations are of:

• Assault
• uttering threats or
• criminal harassment

The policy concerns are all the same in all three cases, but every domestic allegation turns on its own facts and requires a flexible approach.

Defending spousal/domestic allegations:

The government policy may be rigid but a criminal lawyer’s approach to defending assault, harassment and threatening allegations in a family context must be flexible to take into account the future needs of the parties and the public interest in preserving family harmony.  Consequently a criminal lawyer must assess the merits of the case, the family dynamic and the personalities in order to craft an appropriate solution.

It is essential that your defence be based on a flexible plan that lays the groundwork to deal with unanticipated developments.  As a criminal defence lawyer with many years of experience dealing with spousal and domestic assault, threats and harassment allegations, we know how to develop a plan to deal with the charges.  In many domestic cases, our clients avoid a criminal record when they follow our advice.

Assault – Criminal Code

Elements of the offence:

The prosecution must prove that the accused:

1. Applied force, either directly or indirectly to someone without their consent; or
2. Attempted or threatened by act or gesture to apply such force to another person causing that person to reasonably believe the accused had the ability and intention to carry it out; or
3. While opening wearing a weapon, either begged or impeded another person.

To find a person guilty of assault, the prosecution must prove each and every element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The first issue the Court must resolve is whether the actions alleged did in fact take place but it is then to the Court to determine whether the person assaulted had the capacity to consent and freely consent to the act with an appreciation of the risks involved.  In the case of attempted assaults or threatening by act or gesture, the Court will assess the information available to the complainant to assess whether they had reasonable grounds to believe that the accused would follow through with the act that had been attempted or threatened.

If the Court is not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of each and every element of the offence, the accused is entitled to be found not guilty.

Uttering threats:

The prosecution must prove that the accused knowingly caused the object of the threat, typically the complainant, to receive a threat to:

1. Cause death or bodily harm to any person; or
2. Damage, destroy or burn property; or
3. Hurt or kill their animals, pets or livestock.

To find a person guilty of uttering threats, the Court must find that each and every element of the offence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court must first determine whether the alleged threat was in fact made. The next step is to determine whether the accused knowingly uttered the threat.  Finally under this section of the Criminal Code, the threat must be contemplated to have been either to cause the death or bodily harm to any person or damage, destroy or burn their property or to hurt or kill their animals.

The wording of this section creates a defence in that the alleged threat may not be to cause “bodily harm”.  In such a case, however, the statement of the accused may constitute a gesture that may be considered an assault.

If the defence raises a reasonable doubt with respect to any elements of the offence, a Court must acquit the accused.

Click here and fill out our CASE EVALUATOR

Shoplifting is a common offence committed by people with no criminal history or involvement with the Court.  Although theft is considered a crime of dishonesty, people with good morals may find themselves charged with this offence.  A criminal record for shoplifting usually describes the offence as “theft under $5,000”.  It does not differentiate a shoplifting charge.

An arrest for shoplifting is embarrassing and stigmatizing.  A criminal conviction for theft under $5,000 can stand in the way of good jobs, it can bar candidates from certain post-secondary education and can lead to a significant reduction of income over a lifetime.

Most retailers make it a policy to arrest and seek charges for anyone who steals from them, either by shoplifting, changing price tags, or making false returns.  Stores such as The Bay, Sears, Canadian Tire, Whole Foods and other grocery stores have full-time loss prevention officers who will arrest any subject they find shoplifting.  After the arrest, they call the police who will normally attend and serve the suspect with a Promise to Appear.  The store security officer then gives their report to the police who prepares a police file.

A Promise to Appear is a document that compels you to show up in Court at the date and time specified in order to answer the allegation. This is not the trial date.  This is simply a date for the defendants or their lawyers to attend and obtain particulars of the allegation.  For shoplifting charges, we usually attend on behalf of the accused to obtain disclosure and ensure the Court is aware the accused is represented by counsel.

Right to be promptly informed of the reason for your detention or arrest

If there are reasonable grounds to suspect an individual has some association or connection with a crime, the police may detain a person for further investigation – if the detention is necessary to the performance of the officer’s duty.  The obligation on the part of the police is that the individual must be informed upon detention of the reasons for their detention. Such an investigative detention must be brief and not become for all intents and purposes, an arrest.  What all of this means is that the police are not allowed to stop you for no reason and ‘jerk you around’.  If they do, any evidence they obtain may be thrown out by the Court.

Right to silence

The right to silence in Canadian law is a fundamental principle of justice that’s guaranteed by Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The purpose is to allow a person to make meaningful choices about whether to speak or remain silent.  Anything said may find its way in Court as evidence.  The rules of evidence are such that statements favourable to the accused in a criminal trial rarely get before a Court, but incriminating or ambiguous statements that may hurt you often end up before a Court – even where lawfully obtained.  It’s important to rely on your right to silence until you have met with your criminal lawyer and obtained the best legal advice you can find.  In law, your silence can’t be used to prejudice you because of the protection provided by the right to silence.  Remember that no presumptions can be made against an accused person or a defendant because they remained silent.

Right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure

Everyone in Canada is guaranteed not to be subject to a search or seizure unless it’s done in accordance with Canadian law.  “Unreasonable” means without a justifiable reason, but the police need more than a reason to search – they need lawful authority to search.  In the case of a home, this is usually in the form of a search warrant that gives the police the legal right to enter and search a specific home for a fixed period.

If a search is unreasonable, a defendant can apply to a Court for a remedy.  The usual remedy is for exclusion of the evidence that flows from the violation of this right.  Our Canadian Courts have been firm in their approach when this right has been clearly violated, often dismissing charges after ruling the evidence is inadmissible.  The difficulty is that Courts have been less than courageous in finding that police action constituted a violation of this right.

Practice areas: Mischief

In Canadian law, the offence of mischief is damaging someone else’s property without intending to steal it.  A person commits mischief if they intentionally:

1. Destroy or damage property;
2. Render property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;
3. Interfere with someone else’s use, enjoyment or operation of the property.

The offence of mischief is broadly defined to cover most circumstances where a person damages property not belonging them.  Typical cases include graffiti tagging, intentionally damaging someone’s vehicle or home or otherwise damaging public or personal property.

The Crown Attorney must prove that the accused committed the act wilfully – that they intentionally committed the act that caused the damage.  Recklessness is sufficient to prove the intention.  That the accused did not intend to cause the degree of damage is not relevant to a finding of guilt, but may be relevant when determining an appropriate disposition.

We are available in the greater Toronto area including areas such as  Mississauga, Oakville, Milton, Georgetown,  Burlington, Hamilton, Grimsby, Saint Catherines, Niagara Region, Welland and others.

If you are in an area outside those listed, please contact us for more information.