Quebec's Court of Appeal rejects arbitrary police stops ahead of Supreme Court hearing
Quebec's Court of Appeal has refused the provincial government's request to allow arbitrary police traffic stops to continue until a legal challenge of the practice is heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.
In a decision rendered earlier this week, the province's high court said the negative impacts of random stops on racialized people outweigh the benefits to the general public of letting them continue.
Instead, Court of Appeal Justice Stéphane Sansfaçon allowed only certain types of traffic stops to go ahead while the case makes its way through the Supreme Court legal process.
Those include impaired driving checks during which police officers want a breathalyzer sample, or in situations when vehicles need to be pulled over by provincial roadside inspectors.
Last October, the Court of Appeal upheld a landmark 2022 lower court decision that said random traffic stops by police lead to racial profiling, and that gave the government six months to modify the Highway Safety Code.
In December, the province said it was taking the matter to the Supreme Court, and last month asked the Court of Appeal to extend the deadline to modify the highway code until the case is heard at the country's highest court.
In a statement Friday, the province's public security and justice ministers said Monday's Court of Appeal decision partially agrees with the government's position. They said the province believes that random stops are an essential tool for police work and public safety.
The initial ruling by the Quebec Superior Court in 2022 only affected random traffic stops and not structured police operations such as roadside checkpoints aimed at stopping drunk drivers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Province
12 hours ago
- The Province
Supreme Court of Canada quashes B.C. sex conviction, extends 'rape shield' law
High court rules 'rape shield' law that prevents defence lawyers from bringing up sexual past also applies to prosecutors The Supreme Court of Canada quashed a sexual-assault conviction against a B.C. man in a precedent-setting decision that strengthened the 'rape shield' law, ruling that even a complainant's lack of a sexual past can't be brought up in court. Photo by Corgarashu / Fotolia The Supreme Court of Canada quashed a sexual-assault conviction against a B.C. man in a precedent-setting decision that strengthened the 'rape shield' law, ruling that even a complainant's lack of a sexual past can't be brought up in court. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors In a 9-0 unanimous decision released Friday, the court overturned a decision by B.C.'s Appeal Court in which Dustin Kinamore was found guilty of one count of sexual assault. The top court ordered a new trial. The B.C. Prosecution Service is reviewing the decision before deciding if it will be retried, said spokeswoman Damienne Darby in an email. 'The decision brings needed guidance,' including that such evidence needs to be approved by a judge before it is introduced at a trial, she said, adding such evidence can, if it meets certain criteria, still be included at trial. The decision would affect any current trials but she wasn't aware of any in jeopardy because of the ruling, she said. The B.C. Supreme Court and the Appeal Court had both allowed prosecutors to introduce the complainant's texts, which were sexual in nature but also told Kinamore that she did not want to have sex with him. Essential reading for hockey fans who eat, sleep, Canucks, repeat. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Section 276 of Canada's Criminal Code, known as the rape shield law, limits the defence's use of evidence about a complainant's sexual history in court. The trial and appeal court judges had ruled that the prosecution's use of the complainant's sexts, which included that she was a virgin, weren't subject to Section 276 because they weren't about sexual activity but about sexual inactivity. The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed, concluding prosecution 'applications are subject to the same substantive admissibility and procedural requirements that apply to defence-led evidence,' law, wrote Chief Justice Richard Wagner. It said a complainant's sexual inactivity can 'evoke distinct myths and stereotypes that these rules seek to eliminate.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Kinamore's lawyer, Matt Nathanson, said in a text that he was pleased with the ruling and that its significance goes far beyond his case and has 'broken new ground' on sexual assault law that promotes 'consistency and fairness' for both parties because the prosecution has to apply to introduce that evidence in the same way that the defence does. He said Section 276 has long recognized that myths and stereotypes about complainants shouldn't be used to attack their credibility and now, 'for the first time,' the court says 'inverse' myths and stereotypes shouldn't be used to 'unfairly enhance their credibility either.' It is wrong to suggest complainants are more likely to have consented because of sexual history, and 'it is now wrong to suggest that a lack of previous sexual activity means they are less likely to have consented,' he said. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Kinamore, then 22, met the complainant, then 16, in May 2020 and texted each other for months, up to Aug. 3, 2020, when they met at his apartment, according to the decision. She said he sexually assaulted her, and he said the sexual activity was consensual and didn't go as far she said it did because he stopped when she said to stop, it said. At trial, the prosecution introduced text exchanges, some explicitly sexual, without having a hearing known as a voir dire to test their admissibility. In many of them, she made it clear she wasn't interested in a sexual relationship with the accused and some referred to her virginity, and both the prosecution and the defence relied on the evidence, Wagner's judgment said. The Appeal Court ruled the texts were admissible because the complainant's messages expressing she wasn't interested in sex 'fell outside the exclusionary rule governing a complainant's sexual history,' according to Wagner's decision. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. In dismissing that, Wagner wrote that inadmissible evidence was used by the trial judge in her reasons to assess the credibility of the accused and the complainant and she 'relied heavily on this evidence in her reasons for finding Mr. Kinamore guilty.' A new trial was needed because 'her error was not harmless,' Wagner wrote. Relying on a complainant's past sexual inactivity 'remains grounded in false assumptions' that 'undermine the fairness of a trial by distorting its truth-seeking function,' he said. Screening evidence protects the complainant's dignity and privacy, he said. He also said the 'increasing complexity of sexual offence trials' add to the overburdened system and his ruling would will 'assist in minimizing unnecessary cost and delay.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Hilla Kerner of the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter said it's unfortunate in this case because the conviction was overturned, but she welcomed the guidance from the higher court to speed up long trials. Consent is at the core of any sexual assault case, Dalya Israel of the Salal Sexual Violence Support Group, formerly Women against Violence Against Women, said in a text. 'When courts focus on context over consent, even well-meaning approaches, including those led by the Crown, can unintentionally reinforce the very myths the legal system is meant to reject,' she said. Read More Vancouver Canucks Sports Sports Vancouver Canucks News
Vancouver Sun
20 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
Supreme Court of Canada quashes B.C. sex conviction, extends 'rape shield' law
The Supreme Court of Canada quashed a sexual-assault conviction against a B.C. man in a precedent-setting decision that strengthened the 'rape shield' law, ruling that even a complainant's lack of a sexual past can't be brought up in court. In a 9-0 unanimous decision released Friday, the court overturned a decision by B.C.'s Appeal Court in which Dustin Kinamore was found guilty of one count of sexual assault. The top court ordered a new trial. The B.C. Prosecution Service is reviewing the decision before deciding if it will be retried, said spokeswoman Damienne Darby in an email. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. 'The decision brings needed guidance,' including that such evidence needs to be approved by a judge before it is introduced at a trial, she said, adding such evidence can, if it meets certain criteria, still be included at trial. The decision would affect any current trials but she wasn't aware of any in jeopardy because of the ruling, she said. The B.C. Supreme Court and the Appeal Court had both allowed prosecutors to introduce the complainant's texts, which were sexual in nature but also told Kinamore that she did not want to have sex with him. Section 276 of Canada's Criminal Code, known as the rape shield law, limits the defence's use of evidence about a complainant's sexual history in court. The trial and appeal court judges had ruled that the prosecution's use of the complainant's sexts, which included that she was a virgin, weren't subject to Section 276 because they weren't about sexual activity but about sexual inactivity. The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed, concluding prosecution 'applications are subject to the same substantive admissibility and procedural requirements that apply to defence-led evidence,' law, wrote Chief Justice Richard Wagner. It said a complainant's sexual inactivity can 'evoke distinct myths and stereotypes that these rules seek to eliminate.' Kinamore's lawyer, Matt Nathanson, said in a text that he was pleased with the ruling and that its significance goes far beyond his case and has 'broken new ground' on sexual assault law that promotes 'consistency and fairness' for both parties because the prosecution has to apply to introduce that evidence in the same way that the defence does. He said Section 276 has long recognized that myths and stereotypes about complainants shouldn't be used to attack their credibility and now, 'for the first time,' the court says 'inverse' myths and stereotypes shouldn't be used to 'unfairly enhance their credibility either.' It is wrong to suggest complainants are more likely to have consented because of sexual history, and 'it is now wrong to suggest that a lack of previous sexual activity means they are less likely to have consented,' he said. Kinamore, then 22, met the complainant, then 16, in May 2020 and texted each other for months, up to Aug. 3, 2020, when they met at his apartment, according to the decision. She said he sexually assaulted her, and he said the sexual activity was consensual and didn't go as far she said it did because he stopped when she said to stop, it said. At trial, the prosecution introduced text exchanges, some explicitly sexual, without having a hearing known as a voir dire to test their admissibility. In many of them, she made it clear she wasn't interested in a sexual relationship with the accused and some referred to her virginity, and both the prosecution and the defence relied on the evidence, Wagner's judgment said. The Appeal Court ruled the texts were admissible because the complainant's messages expressing she wasn't interested in sex 'fell outside the exclusionary rule governing a complainant's sexual history,' according to Wagner's decision. In dismissing that, Wagner wrote that inadmissible evidence was used by the trial judge in her reasons to assess the credibility of the accused and the complainant and she 'relied heavily on this evidence in her reasons for finding Mr. Kinamore guilty.' A new trial was needed because 'her error was not harmless,' Wagner wrote. Relying on a complainant's past sexual inactivity 'remains grounded in false assumptions' that 'undermine the fairness of a trial by distorting its truth-seeking function,' he said. Screening evidence protects the complainant's dignity and privacy, he said. He also said the 'increasing complexity of sexual offence trials' add to the overburdened system and his ruling would will 'assist in minimizing unnecessary cost and delay.' Hilla Kerner of the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter said it's unfortunate in this case because the conviction was overturned, but she welcomed the guidance from the higher court to speed up long trials. Consent is at the core of any sexual assault case, Dalya Israel of the Salal Sexual Violence Support Group, formerly Women against Violence Against Women, said in a text. 'When courts focus on context over consent, even well-meaning approaches, including those led by the Crown, can unintentionally reinforce the very myths the legal system is meant to reject,' she said.
Winnipeg Free Press
a day ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
What's left for the Supreme Court to decide? 21 cases, including state bans on transgender care
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Tennessee and 26 other states have enacted bans on certain treatment for transgender youth The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population. At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military. Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.
