INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section requires that if a judge of the court of appeal dissents from a judgment, the grounds for their dissent must be specified in the judgment.
SECTION WORDING
677 Where a judge of the court of appeal expresses an opinion dissenting from the judgment of the court, the judgment of the court shall specify any grounds in law on which the dissent, in whole or in part, is based.
EXPLANATION
Section 677 of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the requirement for a judge of the court of appeal to provide their dissenting opinion and for those opinions to be included in the judgment of the court. This section is designed to ensure that the reasoning behind a judge's dissenting opinion is clearly presented and made available to all parties involved in a criminal case. When a judge of the court of appeal expresses a dissenting opinion, it implies that they disagree with the majority decision made by the court. This dissenting opinion can create uncertainty, as it may be unclear what legal grounds or reasoning this judge is using to make their decision. To address this ambiguity, section 677 requires that any judge who expresses a dissenting opinion must clearly state the legal grounds on which their dissent is based. This ensures that the reasons for disagreement are transparent, and that all parties involved in the case are aware of the different interpretations of the law. Overall, section 677 is an important safeguard in the Canadian justice system, ensuring that minority opinions are included and protected within the judgment of the court and allowing for greater transparency and understanding in the legal process.
COMMENTARY
Section 677 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a crucial provision that outlines what should happen in a situation where a judge of the court of appeal has given a dissenting opinion. Essentially, the section requires that the judgment of the court clearly states the grounds in law on which the dissenting opinion was based. In other words, it creates a legal obligation on the court to document any legal disagreements that arise. The primary reason for this provision is to ensure that there is transparency in the court system. By ensuring that the judgments of the court specify the legal grounds on which a dissenting opinion is based, the section ensures that all parties involved in the case (including the accused, the prosecution, and the public) are aware of the full legal reasoning behind the court's decision. This helps to promote trust in the judicial system, as individuals can see that the court is taking a thorough and unbiased approach to the case. In addition, the provision helps to ensure that there is consistency in legal decision-making. By documenting the legal disagreements that arise in a case, the provision makes it easier for appeals courts to assess whether a lower court's ruling was correct or not. This, in turn, helps to ensure that the law is being applied uniformly across cases, and that legal decisions are based on sound legal reasoning. Finally, the provision serves to promote accountability in the court system. By requiring that judges provide a clear and detailed explanation of the legal grounds on which their dissenting opinion is based, the section makes it harder for judges to hide behind vague or unsupported arguments. This helps to ensure that judges are held accountable for their decisions and that they are required to substantiate their opinions with solid legal reasoning. Overall, section 677 of the Criminal Code of Canada is an essential provision that serves to promote transparency, consistency, and accountability in the court system. It ensures that legal decisions are based on sound legal reasoning, and that judges are held accountable for their decisions. By doing so, it helps to uphold the principles of justice and fairness that are fundamental to the Canadian legal system.
STRATEGY
Section 677 of the Criminal Code of Canada mandates that when a judge of the court of appeal expresses a dissenting opinion on a judgment, the judgment must specify the grounds on which the dissent is based. The purpose of this provision is to ensure transparency and accountability in the judicial process and to provide guidance for lower courts in future cases. However, the practical implications of this section require careful consideration by litigants and their lawyers. One strategic consideration when dealing with Section 677 is whether to seek a dissenting opinion from a judge. A dissenting opinion can be helpful in cases where the law is unsettled and the decision of the court is likely to have significant consequences. It can also provide a basis for appealing the decision to a higher court. However, seeking a dissent can also be risky, as it may result in a stronger and more definitive decision by the majority of the court. Another strategic consideration is how to respond to a dissenting opinion. The judgment must specify the grounds on which the dissent is based, which provides an opportunity for lawyers to address those grounds and attempt to persuade the court to reconsider its decision. Lawyers may seek to distinguish the case from the dissenting opinion or to argue that the dissenting judge's interpretation of the law is incorrect or inappropriate. Additionally, lawyers may use the dissenting opinion in future cases as persuasive authority to support their position. A third strategic consideration is the impact that a dissenting opinion may have on the public perception of the case and the judiciary. Depending on the nature of the case and the reasoning behind the dissenting opinion, it may be viewed as controversial or unpopular. Lawyers may need to consider how to respond to media inquiries or public scrutiny in order to manage the reputational impact of the dissenting opinion. In terms of strategies that could be employed when dealing with Section 677, one approach is to thoroughly research and analyze the legal issues involved in the case in order to identify potential areas of disagreement among the judges. Lawyers can then craft arguments and evidence that anticipate potential areas of dissent and attempt to address them proactively. Additionally, lawyers may seek to build relationships with judges and court staff in order to gain insight into their views and preferences and tailor their arguments accordingly. Another strategy is to carefully consider the timing and format of the appeal. Lawyers may choose to request oral arguments in order to address questions or concerns raised by a dissenting judge. Likewise, lawyers may seek to appeal the decision quickly in order to capitalize on any instability or uncertainty in the law or the judiciary. Lawyers may also consider filing amicus briefs or letter briefs in order to provide additional perspective or evidence to the court. In conclusion, Section 677 of the Criminal Code of Canada requires judges to specify the grounds on which a dissenting opinion is based, which has important strategic considerations for litigants and their lawyers. By anticipating potential areas of disagreement, crafting persuasive arguments, and responding to dissenting opinions proactively, lawyers can effectively navigate the judicial process and achieve favorable outcomes for their clients.