Acumen Law’s Paul Doroshenko and Kyla Lee were in Ottawa this week testifying at the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. They were there because of the tangible threat Omnibus Bill C-75 poses to our justice system. We have been critical of the proposed legislation for a while now so when the opportunity arose to air our concerns with lawmakers, we seized it. Whether Paul and Kyla’s criticisms of the bill will be taken into account or whether the government is merely paying lip service remains to be seen. What’s important is that Acumen did something rather than sit idly by while Charter rights and features that are vital to our justice system are eroded.
What is Omnibus Bill C-75?
Bill C-75 is an omnibus bill with the stated aim of addressing issues that contribute to delays in our justice system. Unfortunately, these reforms would not only be to the detriment of our justice system, but they could also make the situation at courts across the country worse than they are now.
“I have been trying to trying to think of a single case in my career, and this is eighteen or nineteen years, where a police officer has testified in a trial and I did not have questions for that police officer on the basis of their testimony”
Allowing police to submit testimony by affidavit
One of the proposed changes that is of particular concern to us at Acumen Law is the issue of allowing police testimony by affidavit rather than appear in court in person as they are currently required to do. This would completely disrupt the valuable role cross-examination plays in our justice system. The bill allows an accused person to apply to the court for the right to cross-examine, but this would require informing them of your line of questioning in advance. Allowing them this opportunity to prepare a response gives the Crown a huge advantage.
“This is a significant concern for us,” Paul Doroshenko told the committee. “Because when we look at it as far as we are concerned, it appears that the police can basically put their whole case in by way of affidavit.”
He added: “My particular concern is that putting evidence in this way is going to lead to wrongful prosecutions and particularly in cases where people are self-represented accused and they do not know about this whole procedure to try and make an application to courts to oppose the Crown’s application to rely on affidavit evidence.”
“I have been trying to trying to think of a single case in my career, and this is eighteen or nineteen years, where a police officer has testified in a trial and I did not have questions for that police officer on the basis of their testimony,” Paul went on to say.
Reversing onus in bail hearings
Another proposed change Paul and Kyla highlighted was the change in the onus for bail in circumstances of individuals charged with domestic assault.
Kyla told the committee: “I think this bill neglects the impact that that is going to have on families, not only in separating people from their children and the negative impact that will have on those familial relationships but also neglects the impact that will have on the reporting of domestic abuse.”
“We have seen similar circumstances in the United States,” she added. “Where the jailing of domestic offenders has led to under-reporting because people are concern about losing the primary source of income or the mother or father to their children as a result of jailing individuals. The impact of families cannot be understated.”
Changes to the limitation period for summary offences
Another concern raised by Acumen Law at the House of Commons was the proposed increase in the limitation period to lay a charge in summary offences from six months to a year.
Implementing this change would allow the Crown to delay things like gathering evidence, disclosure, and bringing charges. Defence counsel, meanwhile, would still be expected to respond to strict deadlines imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada, placing a greater strain on our resources. Clients who are charged will often hire us at the outset of an incident. This would significantly tip the scales of justice in favour of the Crown.
To watch Kyla and Paul’s testimony in full, click here. Paul and Kyla appear around the 17.33 mark.