INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
If a judge or designated justice does not issue a summons or warrant, the information is deemed never to have been laid unless the informant initiates legal proceedings within six months.
SECTION WORDING
507.1(5) If the judge or designated justice does not issue a summons or warrant under subsection (2), he or she shall endorse the information with a statement to that effect. Unless the informant, not later than six months after the endorsement, commences proceedings to compel the judge or designated justice to issue a summons or warrant, the information is deemed never to have been laid.
EXPLANATION
Section 507.1(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the consequences of a judge or designated justice choosing not to issue a summons or warrant in response to an information laid by a private person. If the judge does not issue a summons or warrant as requested, they are required to endorse the information with a statement to that effect. If the information is endorsed, the informant is given the choice to take further action and attempt to compel the judge or designated justice to issue a summons or warrant. If the informant decides not to proceed with this action within six months of the endorsement, the information is deemed to have never been laid. This provision serves as a safeguard against potential abuses of the legal system. If a private person lays an information that lacks sufficient evidentiary support or is intended for frivolous purposes, the judge or designated justice has the discretion to avoid wasting valuable judicial resources to issue a summons or warrant. However, if the informant believes that sufficient evidence exists, or their cause is legitimate, they have an opportunity to force the issue by applying for relief within six months of the endorsement. In summary, Section 507.1(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada serves as a check on the power of private individuals to lay informations and provides a mechanism for judges and designated justices to ensure they are not issuing summonses or warrants in situations where they are not warranted.
COMMENTARY
Section 507.1(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the laying of information for the issuance of a summons or warrant. This provision is significant in that it outlines the consequences of a failure to issue a summons or warrant in response to the laying of an information. The section begins by stating that if the judge or designated justice does not issue a summons or warrant under subsection (2), he or she shall endorse the information with a statement to that effect. This indicates that the judge or designated justice must take some form of action if he or she decides not to issue the summons or warrant. This is important because it ensures that there is a record of the decision not to issue the summons or warrant, which can be used for future reference. The section goes on to state that unless the informant, not later than six months after the endorsement, commences proceedings to compel the judge or designated justice to issue a summons or warrant, the information is deemed never to have been laid. This provision is significant in that it provides a time limitation within which the informant must take action if he or she wishes to pursue the matter further. This is important because it ensures that there is a mechanism in place to prevent abuse of the system, where individuals lay informations in the hope of harassing or intimidating others without any legitimate reason. Overall, the purpose of this provision is to ensure that the laying of an information for the issuance of a summons or warrant is done in a responsible manner. By requiring the judge or designated justice to take some form of action in response to the laying of the information, and by setting a time limitation within which the informant must take action, this provision helps to ensure that the process remains fair and transparent. However, there are some potential issues with this provision. Firstly, the fact that the informant must commence proceedings within six months may be seen as too short a time limit, particularly if there are reasons why the informant cannot take action within that time frame. This could potentially result in a situation where the informant's rights are undermined because of the time limitation, which could result in a miscarriage of justice. Secondly, there is the potential for abuse of the system by individuals who lay informations with no legitimate reason, simply in the hope of causing problems for others. While the provision does provide a mechanism for dealing with such situations, it may not be sufficient to deter those who are determined to cause trouble. In conclusion, while section 507.1(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an important mechanism for ensuring that the laying of an information for the issuance of a summons or warrant is done in a responsible manner, there are potential issues with the provision that must be addressed. By carefully considering these issues, it may be possible to improve the provision and ensure that it remains an effective tool for promoting justice and fairness in the Canadian legal system.
STRATEGY
Section 507.1(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that outlines the consequences of not issuing a summons or warrant based on an information laid before a judge or designated justice. The section specifies that if the judge or designated justice does not issue a summons or warrant, they must endorse the information with a statement to that effect. Unless the informant, not later than six months after the endorsement, commences proceedings to compel the judge or designated justice to issue a summons or warrant, the information is deemed never to have been laid. This provision has some strategic considerations and strategies that could be employed when dealing with it. One of the strategic considerations when dealing with section 507.1(5) is timing. As per the provision, an informant has six months after the endorsement to commence proceedings to compel the judge or designated justice to issue a summons or warrant. Therefore, it is essential to ensure that the informant is aware of the endorsement and understands the implications of the provision. Additionally, the informant should be advised on the available options and the consequences of not taking necessary actions. Timing is key, as failure to commence proceedings within the stipulated timeframe means that the information is deemed never to have been laid. This could have significant implications for the case, as the accused may not face trial or be convicted for the offence. Another strategic consideration is the need for clear communication between the informant and the judge or designated justice. The judge or designated justice must provide a clear explanation for their decision not to issue a summons or warrant. The endorsement must clearly state why the summons or warrant was not issued and what the informant can do to compel the judge or designated justice to issue one. This information could be crucial when the informant is deciding whether to commence proceedings to compel a summons or warrant. Additionally, the informant should be advised on how to prepare for a hearing to compel the judge or designated justice to issue a summons or warrant. To ensure that the judge or designated justice issues a summons or warrant, there are strategies that could be employed. One such strategy is to provide additional evidence that supports the information laid before the judge or designated justice. The additional evidence should be relevant and essential to the case, and it should be presented in a clear and organized manner. Additionally, the informant should provide a compelling argument that explains why a summons or warrant is necessary. This could include outlining the potential risk posed by the accused and the likelihood of them reoffending. Another strategy is to seek legal representation. A lawyer could provide valuable guidance and support on the legal procedures involved in compelling a summons or warrant. The lawyer could also help the informant prepare a strong case and provide representation during the hearing. Additionally, the lawyer could liaise with the judge or designated justice and provide a compelling argument on why a summons or warrant should be issued. In conclusion, Section 507.1(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada has significant implications for an informant who lays information before a judge or designated justice. It is essential to understand the provision's implications and take the necessary steps to ensure that a summons or warrant is issued. Timing, clear communication, and employing effective strategies are crucial when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code of Canada. It is essential to seek legal representation's services and provide additional evidence that supports the information laid before the judge or designated justice to compel a summons or warrant.