INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section defines the various courts referred to in Section 320 related to impaired driving offences in Canada.
SECTION WORDING
320(8) In this section, "court" means (a) in the Province of Quebec, the 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 Supreme Court, Trial Division, (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 320(8) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a definition for the term "court" as used in section 320 of the Code. This section is part of a larger section concerning offenses related to the operation of a motor vehicle while impaired. The definition of "court" varies depending on the province in which the offense occurred. In Quebec, the Court of Quebec is the relevant court, while in Ontario, it is the Superior Court of Justice. In New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, the Court of Queen's Bench is the relevant court. In Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, it is the Supreme Court, Trial Division. In Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories, it is the Supreme Court. Finally, in Nunavut, the relevant court is the Nunavut Court of Justice. The purpose of this definition is to clarify which court has jurisdiction over offenses related to impaired driving, depending on the location of the offense. This section is important for lawyers and judges involved in cases related to impaired driving, helping to ensure that the correct court is involved in the process. In summary, Section 320(8) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a clear definition of the term "court" for the purposes of section 320, ensuring that jurisdiction is properly established depending on the location of the offense.
COMMENTARY
Section 320(8) of the Criminal Code of Canada defines the term "court" for the purposes of the section itself. This provision is a critical component of the criminal justice system in Canada since it provides the framework under which criminal offences related to impaired driving are prosecuted. The provision defines the court as per the province or territory in which the case is being heard. This means that there is no uniform court definition for all offences under section 320, which could lead to confusion and errors in the application of the law. However, it is still essential to maintain regional distinctions since, among other things, the court system in Quebec operates differently from the rest of Canada. Section 320 of the Criminal Code deals with impaired driving offences, and the penalties for these can be steep. The severity of the penalties imposed by the courts is evidence of the Canadian government's firm stance against impaired driving and represents a deterrent to individuals convicted of these kinds of offences. Therefore, this distinction in provincial courts in the application of section 320 is critical for ensuring consistency and accuracy in the application of the law. The provision serves to recognize the sovereignty of provincial and territorial jurisdictions in Canada, which is one of the bedrocks of constitutional law and governance in the country. While division in legal matters may present challenges, it is essential for a federal system like Canada's to create clear boundaries for legal proceedings. It's also worth noting that Section 320 has evolved over time, mainly when it comes to the conditions and evidence required to gain a conviction for an impaired driving offence. The Supreme Court of Canada has clarified the definition of impairment, noting that it can be demonstrated either through evidence of a driver's subjective assessment or other objective measures, such as blood tests. This decision was significant since it removed the need to rely solely on subjective testing methods like field sobriety tests, which could yield unreliable results. In conclusion, Section 320(8) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides the framework under which impaired driving offences are prosecuted in the country. The provision recognizes the sovereignty of provincial and territorial jurisdictions, which are crucial in a federal system like Canada's. Regional distinctions in the court definition serve to ensure consistency and accuracy in the application of the law. While this can present some challenges, it is essential that we continue to strive for a unified legal system that balances national and regional priorities.
STRATEGY
Section 320(8) of the Criminal Code of Canada lays out the various courts that have jurisdiction to hear cases under Section 320, which deals with offenses related to impaired driving. When dealing with this section of the Criminal Code, there are several strategic considerations that should be kept in mind. The first consideration is the jurisdiction of the court. Depending on where the offense occurred, the case may be heard in a provincial court or a superior court. Understanding the differences between these courts and their rules of procedure can help an accused person or their lawyer prepare a more effective defense. Another important consideration is the potential penalties that may be imposed under Section 320. Impaired driving offenses can result in significant fines, license suspensions, and even imprisonment. Understanding the potential consequences of a conviction can help an accused person or their lawyer decide how to approach the case. A key strategy in dealing with Section 320 offenses is to carefully review the evidence against the accused person. This might include breathalyzer test results, witness statements, and police reports. Identifying weaknesses in the prosecution's case can help a defense lawyer negotiate a plea bargain or secure an acquittal at trial. Another strategy that can be employed is to challenge the admissibility of evidence. For example, if the police did not follow proper procedures when administering a breathalyzer test, the results of that test may be excluded from evidence. Similarly, if a witness's testimony is unreliable or tainted by bias, their statements may be challenged in court. A third strategy is to negotiate a plea bargain with the Crown prosecutor. This may involve agreeing to plead guilty to a lesser offense in exchange for reduced penalties. For example, an accused person might agree to plead guilty to a "wet reckless" offense (which is not a criminal offense) instead of a full impaired driving charge. Ultimately, the strategy that is best suited to a particular case will depend on the specific facts and circumstances involved. Seeking the advice of an experienced criminal lawyer is strongly recommended when dealing with Section 320 offenses.