Blog

Canada’s system of laws is integral to our national identity; the laws we create help shape the culture of our nation, balancing our notions of freedom and responsibility. Canada’s law‐making philosophy is “Peace, Order and Good Governance”, which has come to be seen as equivalent to our neighbor to the South’s “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”; it’s obvious that the law is very important to Canadians.

There are three branches of government, broadly defined as legislative, executive and judicial; their function, in order, is to create laws, to administer laws and to interpret law. This means that politicians and their staff might be called legislators; indeed, they often dwell in the Legislative Building. The executive branch might include the Canada Revenue Agency and other government agencies; the judicial branch includes lawyers, judges and other legal professionals.

Canada’s law is further divided into three levels: municipal, provincial/territorial, and federal. These three levels are all responsible for different elements of governance; your municipal government will handle transportation and infrastructure within your city, as well as the collection of property taxes and other municipal fees. There is no municipal court, as municipalities exist at the will of the provincial government. The provincial and territorial level, then, take care of their own domains; infrastructure within the province, property and civil rights, prisons, health care and education are all within the purview of this level of government. Provincial governments, like municipal governments, will have their own branch of law enforcement, usually by contracting the RCMP. They do not, however, have the right to make criminal law; the Criminal Code is exclusively the realm of the federal government. The federal government also levies federal taxes, pays equalization payments, and takes care of many social services, banking law, defense and other issues of national concern.

The court system of Canada is split between the federal and provincial/territorial governments. Generally speaking, a given court case will start in a provincial court, known sometimes as the lowest court. These courts deal with small claims, most criminal offenses, and some elements of family law (but not divorce/marriage law). The next level is known as the Superior Court; it might also be called the Supreme Court, or the Court of the Queen’s Bench. These Courts deal with large claims, serious criminal offenses, and divorce cases. The Court of Appeals is the final provincial court, which, appropriately enough, deals with appeals that have gone past the Superior Court.

Federal Courts deal with a wide range of issues not covered by the other courts, including intellectual property law, citizenship claims and provincial disputes. There are also specialized branches of federal courts which deal with specific disputes, such as the Tax Court or the Court Martial. Appeals from the Federal Courts go to the Federal Court of Appeals; all appeals which cannot be rectified by other courts and are considered legitimate arrive at the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest‐level court in the country.

The law is complex, but understanding the branches and levels can help anyone better navigate its murky waters. The best way of learning the law is by looking to a professional; if you’ve been charged with a crime, there are recognized criminal lawyers in Winnipeg ready to help you.

You’ve heard of polygraph tests, often called lie detectors; the police hook you up to a machine, it monitors your blood pressure, respiration, pulse and other physical responses, and you’re asked a series of questions. Depending on how your physical responses change when you answer the questions, the machine will be able to tell whether or not you’re lying…or so the story goes. As it turns out, lie detectors are not nearly as reliable as popular culture might have you believe.

The value of polygraph tests is debated between scientists, but mainly believe them to be mostly pseudoscience, with one psychologist going so far as to compare it to throwing a suspected witch into a river. The core problem with lie detection is that there’s no one set of physiological responses you can expect when someone lies; one liar might start sweating, while another goes completely dry. Some people become exceptionally nervous when they lie, while others stay cool as cucumbers; experienced liars might have no problem at all “fooling” a lie detector. Some people will even thinking arousing thoughts when giving true answers, because the symptoms of arousal and nervous excitement are often similar, physiologically speaking. Yet another problem with the lie detector is how often it gives false positives; the test is said to be decent at detecting lies, but quite bad at detecting honesty, which is incredibly problematic for the justice system.

It’s understandable, then, to wonder at whether or not the results from a polygraph are admissible in court; the system seems quite unreliable, after all! The answer is quite straightforward: no, the results of a polygraph test are not admissible as evidence in a criminal court. This was made clear in the ruling of a Supreme Court case, R. v. Béland; interestingly enough, the ruling was more based on procedural rules than the unreliability of lie detector evidence. Without delving too deeply into the details, the ruling was made because polygraph results were deemed confusing, unnecessary, and were deemed to violate rules of evidence.

The first way polygraphs violate standards is that the results of an “honest” polygraph test serve only to bolster the credibility of a given party’s witness; this is known as oath‐helping, and is against the rules. Another rules violation is that having someone say “They told me the same thing they’re telling the court” can’t make a witness more credible; the polygraph tester would essentially be acting as that person, so the evidence is inadmissible. Yet another violation is that you can establish your reputation, but you can’t refer to specific acts that establish character, i.e. “The proof that I’m not a liar is that I passed the polygraph test”. Finally, the court assumes the ability of the judge and jury to establish how honest a witness is being; expert testimony should only be used to establish facts that are otherwise unknowable.

While the results of a polygraph test aren’t admissible, anything you say to the police might be admissible as evidence in court, including what you say during a polygraph test. A recognized Winnipeg criminal lawyer will help you understand your right, and how to proceed to make the best case for yourself, if you are charged with a criminal offense.

Do I Need to Say Anything to the Police?

You need to produce your identification, insurance and vehicle registration if requested by the police and comply with their demands for a saliva sample, sobriety test, and/ or a blood or urine sample. Other than complying with these things and identifying yourself, you do not need to speak to the police. This means that if they ask you questions, like whether you have smoked marijuana, you do not need to answer.

If you are arrested, you have the right to remain silent and do not need to speak to the police. In Canada, even if you tell police you are using your right to silence they may continue to ask you questions. You do not need to say anything.

It is a criminal offence to lie to the police about your identity or in a statement. Simply stay silent. If you are unsure whether you need to say anything, ask to call a lawyer.

Can They Search My Car?

If you are stopped at the side of the road, police can look in your car like any other person could. This means looking through your windows, possibly with a flashlight if it is dark. Police can see anything left in plain sight in your vehicle, like a bong or bag of cannabis.

Police cannot search your car unless they believe a crime was committed and that items connected to that crime are in your car. If the police believe there is something in your car, they cannot search unless they have a warrant, or believe exigent circumstances are present. Exigent circumstances means that police believe that they must search your car now because they are concerned for their safety, the public’s safety, or think evidence would be destroyed. Your car may be impounded until the police have a search warrant. Then they would search your car for evidence. This can include searching inside any bags left in your car.

Police may try to get your consent to search your car, trunk, or to look inside of any bags in your car. You do not need to give them consent.

Can They Search Me?

Police can do a pat down search of your body either upon arrest, or before arrest if they believe that their own safety is at risk. This is done for their safety to ensure that you do not have any weapons or things that could harm anyone. If police feel any hard objects, they may ask you to take those objects out of your pocket.

When Do I Get to Call a Lawyer?

When you are initially stopped, either by the police or at a traffic stop, you do not have the right to call a lawyer. You must comply with an oral fluid test if they ask without consulting a lawyer. If you refuse and the police charge you, then you may speak to a lawyer.

If police request a DRE, or a blood or urine sample, then you have the right to talk to a lawyer.

If police arrest you, and take you into custody, then you have the right to talk to a lawyer.

If you do not know your lawyer’s phone number, police can assist you in getting your lawyer’s phone number. If your lawyer cannot be reached, or if you do not have a lawyer, you can tell the police you want to speak with a lawyer and they can arrange for you to speak with Legal Aid. You can also call a private lawyer who you can hire later if you wish.

Quebec is seen as a land apart; it has been called a “nation within Canada” due to the predominance of the French language, it’s different culture and customs, and it’s tumultuous history with the rest of Canada. Another important distinction between Quebec and the rest of the provinces is its use of the civil law, based on the French custom, instead of common law with its precedent in Britain. Criminal law is federally legislated, so matters in the criminal domain are handled by the Crown, regardless of regional customs. On matters of dispute between private parties, however, the law plays out quite differently in Quebec.

Common law is based on precedent. This gives judges a tremendous amount of sway in the legal system; when they rule on a matter, their ruling can be referred to by judges throughout centuries. In civil law, however, there are a series of codified statutes that are used when deciding on a ruling; precedent can be discussed but is by no means compelling enough to settle a case.

The role of judges and lawyers in both systems is quite different as well; common law might be termed adversarial while civil law is inquisitorial. In common law, lawyers for the plaintiff and the defendant gather evidence and present it to the judge and jury, who determine who is guilty based on the balance of probabilities. The judge’s role here is as arbitrator, as well as to determine sentencing. In the civil law system, judges take on the role of inquisitor; they are in charge of investigating the case, finding evidence, and using the code of laws and statutes to determine a charge.

The role lawyers take in each system is thus also quite different. In a common law system, it is the attorneys who are tasked with presenting evidence to the court to make a compelling case; in a civil law system, the judge presents the evidence, and lawyers form narratives and arguments based on the evidence that has been presented to them.

Another distinction between Quebec’s system and the rest of Canada’s is the division between notaries and attorneys. In Quebec, if you are a notary you are forbidden from representing your client in court, and attorneys are forbidden from doing the work of notaries; that’s because notaries are supposed to provide an impartial, conflict‐avoiding overview of the law, while attorneys are there to contest in a more adversarial setting.

The distinction between Quebec’s branches of law fall apart when it comes to criminal law because criminal law falls under federal jurisdiction. Criminal law will always have a strong basis in the common‐law, precedent based British system. Should you be charged with a criminal offense in Quebec or any other province, you need strong criminal defense representation in order to defend yourself against the charges in a common law system. Navigating the law is extremely complex, and Canada is one of the few countries to have both civil and common law present in the same country, so it’s important to know the nature of the charges laid against you.