As previously noted on this blog, Bill C-46 will when it takes effect make many offences that currently render someone inadmissible for criminality inadmissible for serious criminality.

The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has now affirmed that these changes will not apply retrospectively.

As such, people who were previously deemed rehabilitated will continue to be so. As well, people who committed an offence prior to December 18, 2018 will benefit from the previous sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code.

 » Read more about: Bill C-46 and Retrospectivity  »

Read more ›

In a recent Borderlines episode, Garth Barriere, Eric Purtzki, Peter Edelmann and I discussed the constitutionality of laws that are retroactive or retrospective.  This episode can be found here:

A link to this episode’s synopsis can be found here.

The following post provides a more detailed written summary of retroactive and retrospective legislation in the immigration context.

 » Read more about: Retrospective Legislation  »

Read more ›

On the 9th podcast episode, Garth Barriere and Eric Purtzki joins Peter Edelmann and Steven Meurrens to discuss the constitutionality of laws that are retroactive or retrospective.  Peter and Steven also discuss the recent election of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States.

Garth and Eric are both criminal defence attorneys in Vancouver.  Both have appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada on numerous occasions.

 

A retrospective law is a piece of legislation that operates going forward, but looks to change the consequence for a past action.

A retroactive law changes the legal consequences of what the act was in the past. It changes someone’s legal status as it was in the past.

There is a presumption against both retrospectively and retroactivity in Canada, however, there is no general Charter protection against it.

The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. K.R.J.can be found here. Garth and Eric both appeared as counsel in this case, which formed the basis for our discussion.  In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed that while criminal laws should generally not operate retrospectively, an exception would be made in the case of sentencing for sexual offenders involving minors.

In reading this case, and listening to the summary of it, it is helpful to keep section 11(i) of the Charter in mind, which states:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right …
(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment

It is also helpful to understand how s.

 » Read more about: Borderlines Podcast Episode 9 – Garth Barriere & Eric Purtzki on retrospective laws, plus Donald Trump and Canadian immigration  »

Read more ›