Criminal Code of Canada - section 188(4) - Definition of Chief Justice

section 188(4)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Section 188(4) defines Chief Justice for the purposes of the preceding sections in the Criminal Code of Canada.

SECTION WORDING

188(4) In this section, "Chief Justice" means (a) in the Province of Ontario, the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court; (b) in the Province of Quebec, the Chief Justice of the Superior Court; (c) in the Provinces of Nova Scotia and British Columbia, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; (d) in the Provinces of New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench; (e) in the Provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Trial Division; and (f) in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, the senior judge within the meaning of subsection 22(3) of the Judges Act.

EXPLANATION

Section 188(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a definition of the term "Chief Justice" as it pertains to Section 188 of the Code. This section deals with the offence of advocating or promoting genocide, which is a serious crime that involves inciting hatred and violence against a particular group of people. The definition of "Chief Justice" varies depending on the province or territory in which the offence is alleged to have occurred. In Ontario, it refers to the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court, while in Quebec, it refers to the Chief Justice of the Superior Court. In Nova Scotia and British Columbia, it refers to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, while in New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, it refers to the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench. In Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, it refers to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Trial Division, and in Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, it refers to the senior judge within the meaning of subsection 22(3) of the Judges Act. This section underscores the importance of understanding the jurisdictional considerations involved in criminal law in Canada. The definition of the term "Chief Justice" highlights the fact that there are different legal systems and structures in place across the country, and that the role of the judiciary may vary depending on where an offence is alleged to have taken place. By providing a clear definition of the term "Chief Justice," Section 188(4) helps to ensure that those charged with advocating or promoting genocide are held accountable for their actions in accordance with the laws of their respective provinces or territories.

COMMENTARY

Section 188(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada defines the term Chief Justice" for the purposes of section 188 of the Code. Section 188 itself concerns the offence of advocating genocide, which is defined as any act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, any identifiable group." This offence is a serious one, and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The definition of Chief Justice" provided in subsection 188(4) is specific to each province and territory in Canada. In Ontario, for example, the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court is considered the Chief Justice" for the purposes of section 188. In Quebec, it is the Chief Justice of the Superior Court, while in Nova Scotia and British Columbia, it is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This is because the judicial system in Canada is organized on a provincial and territorial basis, with each province and territory establishing its own courts and appointing its own judges. The inclusion of this definition in section 188 is significant because it highlights the importance of the judiciary in Canada's legal system. The role of the Chief Justice in each province and territory is a crucial one, and this subsection acknowledges that fact by making specific reference to the Chief Justices in each jurisdiction. It also emphasizes the importance of having a clear understanding of the individuals who hold this important position, so that the law can be applied effectively and fairly. The reference to the senior judge" within the meaning of subsection 22(3) of the Judges Act in Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut is also significant. Subsection 22(3) of the Judges Act provides that the senior judge in a territory is the judge who has served the longest in that territory. This definition makes sense in the context of these territories, as they have a small population and a limited number of judges. Nonetheless, it is important for the Criminal Code to be clear about who is considered the Chief Justice" in each jurisdiction. Overall, subsection 188(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a brief but important provision that clarifies the definition of Chief Justice" for the purposes of section 188. It highlights the importance of the judiciary in Canada's legal system and ensures that the law can be applied effectively and fairly across the country. While this provision may not be of great interest to the general public, it is a crucial component of Canada's criminal law framework.

STRATEGY

Section 188(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada lays out the definition of Chief Justice" for the purposes of Section 188 of the same code. This section criminalizes the willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group, which includes, but is not limited to, race, religion, and gender identity. Some strategic considerations when dealing with this section include the potential impact on free speech and the potential bias of law enforcement and the courts in enforcing the law. One strategy that could be employed is to carefully craft statements and communications to avoid any potential violation of Section 188. This can involve being mindful of the language used and avoiding making statements that could be interpreted as promoting hatred towards an identifiable group. This can be particularly challenging in an era of heightened political correctness, where even seemingly innocuous statements can be twisted and construed as being hateful. Another strategy is to carefully consider the context in which statements are made. Section 188 is not meant to punish legitimate political discourse or debate, and so focusing on the intent behind the statements can be important. It is also important to consider any extenuating circumstances, such as mental illness or emotional distress, that may have contributed to the statements being made. A third strategic consideration is the potential for bias in how the law is enforced and interpreted. This can include the political and personal biases of law enforcement and judicial actors, as well as systemic biases within the legal system. It is important to be aware of these biases and to work to counteract them wherever possible. To address these strategic considerations and mitigate the risk of running afoul of Section 188, individuals and organizations can employ a range of strategies and tactics. These might include working with experienced legal counsel to craft communications strategies, engaging in outreach and education efforts to promote understanding and acceptance of diverse groups, and partnering with community organizations to promote inclusion and diversity. These efforts can help to prevent the promotion of hatred and reduce the potential for conflict and violence based on identity characteristics.