INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section defines the meaning of Court in Section 164 of the Criminal Code of Canada for various provinces and territories.
SECTION WORDING
164(8) In this Section, "Court" means(a) in the Province of Quebec, the Court of Quebec, the municipal court of Montreal and the municipal court of Quebec, (a.1) in the Province of Ontario, the Superior Court of Justice, (b) in the Provinces of New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the Court of Queen’s Bench, (c) in the Provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, the Trial Division of the Supreme Court, (d) in the Provinces of Nova Scotia and British Columbia, in Yukon and in the Northwest Territories, the Supreme Court, and (e) in Nunavut, the Nunavut Court of Justice;
EXPLANATION
Section 164(8) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that clarifies what "Court" refers to in Section 164 of the same Code. Section 164 deals with various sexual offences, including sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual exploitation. The provision specifies that the Court mentioned in Section 164(8) depends on the province or territory where the charges are being laid. In Quebec, the Court of Quebec, the municipal court of Montreal, and the municipal court of Quebec are the designated courts. In Ontario, it is the Superior Court of Justice. In New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, it is the Court of Queen's Bench. In Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, it is the Trial Division of the Supreme Court. In Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories, it is the Supreme Court. In Nunavut, it is the Nunavut Court of Justice. This provision is important because it provides clarity to the legal system and helps avoid confusion when dealing with these specific sexual offences and their related court procedures. Knowing which court has jurisdiction over certain criminal charges can also help make the legal process more efficient and cost-effective. Moreover, providing clarity on the specific courts responsible for the offences can ensure that justice is delivered fairly and equitably across all provinces and territories.
COMMENTARY
Section 164(8) of the Criminal Code of Canada defines the term "Court" for the purposes of Section 164, which pertains to the offence of voyeurism. The definition of "Court" varies depending on the province or territory in which the offence occurred. This section is important because it clarifies which court has jurisdiction over cases of voyeurism, and ensures that offenders are prosecuted in an appropriate forum. This provision recognizes that the structure of the judicial system varies across Canada, and that different courts may have jurisdiction over criminal offences in different provinces. For example, in Quebec, the Court of Quebec, the municipal court of Montreal, and the municipal court of Quebec have jurisdiction over voyeurism cases. This is different from Ontario, where the Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction. Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island have a different court structure altogether, with the Trial Division of the Supreme Court having jurisdiction over voyeurism offences. This section is important because it ensures that offenders are prosecuted in the correct forum, which can have significant implications for their legal defence and sentencing. If a voyeurism offence is prosecuted in the wrong court, it could result in a wrongful conviction, a reduced sentence, or an appeal of the conviction. By providing clarity on which court has jurisdiction, Section 164(8) helps to prevent these types of errors. It is also notable that the definition of "Court" in this section does not include lower-level courts such as provincial courts or magistrate courts. This means that cases of voyeurism must be heard in a higher court, which generally has more resources and a greater ability to handle complex criminal cases. This can lead to more comprehensive and effective legal proceedings, and ultimately, better outcomes for victims and society as a whole. Overall, Section 164(8) is an important provision in the Criminal Code of Canada, as it clarifies which courts have jurisdiction over cases of voyeurism. By ensuring that cases are prosecuted in the correct forum, this section helps to prevent legal errors and ensures that offenders are held accountable for their actions.
STRATEGY
Section 164(8) of the Criminal Code of Canada establishes the different courts where a charge laid under Section 164 can be prosecuted. Section 164 of the Criminal Code deals with the criminal offence of voyeurism. This section makes it an offence for anyone to surreptitiously observe or record another individual in a situation where the individual is in circumstances that would give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intention of obtaining sexual gratification or for another person to obtain sexual gratification. When dealing with Section 164 of the Criminal Code of Canada, there are several strategic considerations that lawyers need to keep in mind. The first strategic consideration is to assess the strength of the evidence available. A thorough examination of the available evidence is crucial in building a strong case and ensuring that the court has sufficient evidence to prove the offence of voyeurism beyond a reasonable doubt. This evidence may include video recordings, photographs, and witness statements. Another strategic consideration is to determine whether a plea bargain is appropriate. A plea bargain may be beneficial to the accused and the prosecution as it can result in a reduced sentence or the withdrawal of other charges and avoiding a lengthy trial. The lawyer may choose to negotiate the plea bargain with the prosecutor or choose to have the accused plead guilty to a lesser charge under Section 173 of the Criminal Code, which deals with the possession, distribution or production of child pornography. The third strategic consideration is to evaluate the possible defences that can be raised in court. Defences raised in cases of voyeurism include that the accused did not intend to obtain sexual gratification, that the act was not done surreptitiously, and that the victim did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances of the case. The lawyer must be well-versed in the legal precedents related to Section 164 and anticipate any defences that may be raised by the accused. A fourth strategic consideration is to determine the most appropriate court to prosecute the charge. The choice of court can be critical to the success of the case. For instance, if the case is heard in a municipal court, the sentencing options may be limited, whereas if the case is heard in a superior court, the judge has greater discretion on the sentence that can be imposed. Finally, a strategic consideration for the defence lawyer is to ensure that the accused is granted bail before trial. This is important as it allows the accused to continue with their daily activities, work, and support their family while awaiting trial. Moreover, it provides an opportunity for the accused to prepare for trial with their lawyer and gather evidence required to put up a strong defence to the charges. In conclusion, lawyers must consider various strategic approaches when dealing with Section 164 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Strategies employed may include assessing the strength of the evidence available, negotiating a plea bargain, evaluating possible defences, choosing the most appropriate court to prosecute the charge, and ensuring that the accused is granted bail before trial. Each case will have its unique challenges, but the above strategic considerations will provide a useful guide to lawyers.