Addressing criticism that bail blurs the line between prevention and punishment, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously agreed “it is time to ensure that bail provisions are applied consistently and fairly” (R v Antic 2017 SCC 27, [2017] 1 SCR 509). Rather than reform bail, this decision simply reaffirmed the existing legal mandate: using the ladder principle, accused must be released with the fewest conditions necessary to prevent them from absconding, reoffending/interfering with the administration of justice, and/or bringing the criminal justice system into disrepute. We analyze 480 bail hearings in Ontario, Canada, that occurred pre- and post- the R v Antic decision. Our results reveal that justices are more attentive to the ladder principle post-Antic, such that more accused are released on their own recognizance than in the past. While post-Antic trends show a reduction in the use of certain behaviour-modifying conditions, bail supervision programs are used more frequently. We discuss the implications of these findings in light of Canada’s “broken bail system.”

There is little scholarship on museums and heritage sites that memorialize courts, judges, and law. Engaging with literatures on penal history and law and culture, we explore representations of law and power in court museums across Canada. Based on observations and interviews, we examine the meanings of the artifacts curated at court museum sites. In a post-Truth and Reconciliation Commission context, where heritage sites have been called upon to account for the atrocities experienced by Indigenous peoples in colonial institutions, we show how court museums in Canada continue to be curated in ways that naturalize the Canadian state and law, deny colonialism, and reproduce myths regarding the Canadian penal system. In our discussion, we reflect on the implications of our findings for literatures on representations of penality and law. We contend penal history museums must learn from critical, decolonizing trends in museological studies.

In May 2012, a former research assistant contacted the Montréal police about an interview he had conducted with Luka Magnotta for the SSHRC-funded research project Sex Work and Intimacy: Escorts and their Clients four years previously. That call ultimately resulted in the Parent and Bruckert v R and Magnotta case. Now, a decade later, we are positioned to reflect on the collective lessons learned (and lost) from the case. In this paper, we provide a lay of the Canadian confidentiality landscape before teasing out ten lessons from Parent c R. To do so, we draw on personal archives, survey results from sixty researchers, twelve key informant interviews with qualitative sociolegal and criminology researchers, and documentary analysis of university research policies. The lessons, which range from the clichéd, to the practical, to the frustrating, have implications for the individual work of Canadian researchers and for the collective work of academic institutions.

Cet article analyse la création, l’adaptation et l’utilisation des dispositifs juridiques employés dans le contrôle des manifestants pendant le G20 à Toronto (2010), notamment le recours à un régime spécial basé sur la Loi sur la protection des ouvrages publics (LPOP). Le recours à une loi obscure de la Seconde Guerre mondiale et le peu de transparence gouvernementale sur les lois applicables aux manifestants ont créé des conditions favorables à la plus intense arrestation de masse de l’histoire canadienne (1 118 personnes en deux jours). Nous suggérons que nous assistons à un développement soutenu de nouvelles formes de gouvernance punitive qui opèrent au-delà du droit pénal, à la limite de l’état de droit (« trous juridiques ») et des garanties juridiques traditionnellement associées au procès criminel. Nous concluons que l’utilisation de ces raccourcis punitifs est juridiquement dangereuse et a pour effet systémique de concentrer beaucoup de pouvoir dans les institutions policières.

The prosecutorial independence of the Attorney General (AG) is a firmly established constitutional convention in Canada, but it is also an evolving convention, subject to ongoing contestation and debate. This article is a contribution to that debate. It defends a normative constitutional framework wherein the AG’s authority to make final decisions in matters of criminal prosecution is balanced against a corresponding duty to consult with cabinet and the prime minister on the public interest implications of prosecutorial decisions when the circumstances warrant. Within this normative framework, respectful contestation and debate amongst ministers, the prime minister, and the AG in determining the public interest merits of prosecution is welcomed, even encouraged, and if conducted with the requisite integrity, objectivity, and transparency, it is regarded not as a threat but as a valuable check and balance on AG independence and an indispensable form of quality control on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

In addition to standard parole conditions, parolees under federal community supervision may be subject to special conditions as determined by the Parole Board of Canada; such conditions are intended to manage factors associated with criminogenic risk and need. One set of special conditions places restrictions on parolees’ social relationships and associations, which can include general restrictions (e.g., non-association with individuals involved in crime) or specific restrictions (e.g., no contact with one’s victim or co-accused). Drawing on case files of women under community supervision (n = 43), we explore how non-association and no contact orders shape community release experiences. We suggest that such conditions can have wide-reaching effects on women’s social lives and reintegration (e.g., in the areas of social support, employment, and housing), thereby, at times, complicating women’s attempts to construct post-institutional lives and identities. We consider how association conditions illustrate the broader tension between parole requirements and reintegration.

Youths in care are among the most vulnerable youths in our society. All youths in care have experienced trauma and sometimes exhibit trauma-induced behaviours which are perceived by others as disruptive or dangerous. The police are frequently called, which begins a cycle of criminalization for many youths, with racialized youths overrepresented in this group. Using an intersectional theoretical framework, this article shows how discriminatory perceptions of race and mental health influence justice system actors’ decision-making, from arrest to bail. Drawing on data from qualitative interviews with twenty-five young adults (ages 18 to 24) who have had contact with the child welfare and criminal justice systems and ten practicing lawyers in Ontario, the analysis reveals race-based differences in justice system actors’ responses to mental illness. Discriminatory views function as a lens through which racialized and mentally ill youths leaving care are perceived as threats and met with more punitive responses.

Following Japan’s 1941 attacks on Hawai’i and Hong Kong, Canada relocated, detained, and exiled citizens and residents of Japanese ancestry. Many interracial families, however, were exempted from this racial project called the internment. The form of the exemption was an administrative permit granted to its holder on the basis of their marital or patrilineal proximity to whiteness. This article analyzes these permits relying on archival research and applying a critical race feminist lens to explore how law was constitutive of race at this moment in Canadian history. I argue that the permits recategorized interracial intimacies towards two racial ends: to differentiate the citizen from the “enemy alien”; and to regulate the interracial family according to patriarchal common law principles. This article nuances received narratives of law as an instrument of racial exclusion by documenting the way in which a new inclusive state measure sustained old exclusions.

Les crises sanitaires produisent des effets transversaux sur la santé publique et l’ordre socio‑politique. Aux yeux des citoyens, c’est le pouvoir normatif qui s’est trouvé discrédité par la crise sanitaire liée à la Covid-19. Bousculée à plusieurs reprises, la norme juridique a perdu beaucoup de sa normativité et de sa valeur dans la conscience collective. Face aux différentes formes de désarticulation subies par le pouvoir normatif, il paraît urgent d’envisager des perspectives de réforme visant à rénover la fonction et le processus de création des normes juridiques. L’application des outils de la légistique et l’adoption d’une conception plus partenariale que régalienne de la fonction normative peuvent concourir au changement souhaité de la culture normative.

Le contrôle excessif est considéré par différents organismes communautaires et institutions du Québec comme une des représentations des violences basées sur l’honneur (VBH) au même titre que les mariages forcés, les mutilations génitales féminines (MGF) et les violences physiques ou psychologiques. En 2016, pour la première fois, le législateur québécois a ajouté le contrôle excessif à la liste des mauvais traitements psychologiques explicitement reconnus par la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse (LPJ). Toutefois, aucune définition juridique, jurisprudentielle, politique ou même doctrinale du contrôle excessif n’accompagne cette reconnaissance juridique. Pourtant, il existe, sur le terrain et dans différentes décisions judiciaires, des situations où l’existence du contrôle excessif est reconnue par divers intervenants du système. L’objectif du présent article est d’appréhender le phénomène du contrôle excessif à partir, d’abord, d’un examen doctrinal et juridique, autant fédéral que provincial, concernant les VBH en général, et ensuite, d’une analyse jurisprudentielle des décisions de la Chambre de la Jeunesse de la Cour du Québec associées particulièrement au contrôle excessif. Le tout permettra de proposer une définition du contrôle excessif dans le contexte des VBH, dans le but de mieux identifier cette violence intrafamiliale spécifique et de mieux intervenir auprès des victimes et de leur famille.

This article explores normative arguments for mandatory judicial bilingualism. It disentangles the links between the normative reasons advanced for mandatory bilingualism and the correlative level of French that should be expected of judges. To provide empirical anchoring, we construct a bilingualism score of Canadian Supreme Court justices composed of four indicators. The score shows that non-systematic assessments used so far like self-assessments, parliamentary hearings and media coverage are not reliable instruments to predict the level of use of French on the Supreme Court. Also, the score suggests that institutional dynamics have an impact worth studying in more depth. Ultimately, the measurement of functional bilingualism depends first on which linguistic capacity is being measured. This, in turn, depends on the normative reasons supporting the requirement of functional bilingualism. Instead of asking whether French should be mandatory upon appointment, it might be more productive to ask how much French should be required.

This article examines how exploitation informs judicial interpretations of human trafficking in Canadian criminal cases. While socio-legal and popular notions of trafficking often suggest that forced movement into a decidedly exploitative labour context is required, our analysis of key appellate cases and constitutional challenges reveals that actual exploitation is not a necessary element of the offence. Instead, the trafficking in persons provision criminalizes the intent to exploit, while requiring the court to adopt an “objective” assessment of whether a reasonable person in the complainant’s circumstances could potentially fear for their safety in the context of providing (sexual) labour. We argue that this objective standard contributes to a gendered hierarchy of legal knowledge and ultimately privileges the perceived masculinized rationality of the courts and legal actors while rendering the subjective experiences of complainants as less central to the prosecution of human trafficking.

Canada’s National Housing Strategy (NHS) commits the government to eliminating chronic homelessness and promises that realizing the right to housing is a key objective. In this article, we explore how the Canadian government could realize the right to housing in the context of eliminating chronic homelessness. We argue that it is helpful to look at how other jurisdictions have successfully reduced homelessness. In this article we examine Finland and Scotland’s approaches because they offer certain similarities in how homelessness is addressed, yet they also differ, most crucially in how they understand the right to housing. We argue that both of these jurisdictions offer important lessons for Canada to draw on as it seeks to reduce long-term homelessness.

Building institutional and procedural bridges between science and policy is a vital role for law. Fundamental to the success of this work is the development of more sophisticated, nuanced understandings of scientific knowledge production than those which are current in legal and policy spheres. In this paper, I consider scientific controversies that have emerged in the field of human and environmental health impacts of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), notably around methodological approaches to identifying such chemicals and analysing the risks they pose. Building on literatures in the philosophy and sociology of science, I identify bases on which bridge-building between science and policy could proceed and discuss the role that legal normativity can play in those processes.

Public support is a critical component of any court’s institutional legitimacy. Understanding the roots and durability of such support is therefore crucial. This article uses survey data to explore public attitudes towards Canadian courts from 2008 to 2019. This time period is especially relevant given the comparatively tumultuous relationship between the Supreme Court and the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper (2006–2015). Notably, partisanship now appears to be a defining characteristic of court support in Canada, with Conservative Party supporters being less likely to support the courts. While institutional trust is also found to be a strong predictor of court support, this suggests public attitudes towards Canadian courts may no longer be as well shielded from the effects of changing political circumstances as they once were.

The Assisted Human Reproduction Act seeks to protect egg donors’ health and well-being and prevent trade in their reproductive capabilities. In order to fulfill these objectives, the Act prohibits the buying and selling of ova, and only allows for egg donors to be reimbursed for their expenses. However, no regulations setting out what expenses can be reimbursed were promulgated. Sixteen years later, these long-awaited regulations finally came into force in June 2020. In this study, I rely on data from interviews with sixteen egg donors in order to assess how the new regulations might help or hinder concerns that egg donors have with how egg transactions are regulated in Canada. I argue that the new regulations might hinder, more than help with, addressing current concerns related to egg transactions in Canada. The most likely result is that they will not change the current state of affairs.

Prisoners in Canadian federal penitentiaries can obtain medical assistance in dying (MAiD). This raises questions about the nature and legitimacy of pain and death in incarceration. The authors analyze responses to a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation online news article discussing the provision of MAiD to prisoners. The comments exemplify different sensibilities about the state’s lethality with respect to prisoners. These sensibilities—both legal and penal—draw on an array of cultural referents to orient to prisoners’ deaths generally, but also MAiD specifically. The authors explore how certain referents factor in these legal and penal sensibilities and appear to mediate commenters’ judgements. For example, capital punishment factors significantly in conversations about MAiD for prisoners, as well as imaginations of prisoners’ bodies in pain. As a result, there is a spectacularization of prisoners’ carceral death, despite the humane, “civilized” death MAiD provides, which circumscribes how some commenters imagine the procedure and prisoners’ deaths.

Mandatory meat inspection requirements have long been a source of frustration for advocates of ethical meat. Seen as overly restrictive and ill-adapted to the realities on the ground, some argue that farm-to-consumer sales should be subject to less stringent inspection requirements than conventional meat supply chains. Recently, a series of legislative reforms authorizing on-farm slaughter suggests that policy makers are listening. But do on-farm slaughter exemptions really facilitate ethical meat sales? To answer this question, this paper explores meat inspection systems in Quebec, Ontario, and Vermont. Drawing on data obtained from semi-structured interviews with producers, processors, and policy advisors, it argues that inspection requirements may not be the barriers they are presumed to be. Instead, producers and processors face other more significant financial and structural challenges. These need to be addressed if ethical meat is to be a viable alternative to the dominant model of animal agriculture.

This paper argues that patterns of pervasive police violence can and should be treated as organizational crime in Canada. It uses the documented events of police violence in Val d’Or, Quebec, that emerged in 2015 to show how a similar fact pattern might fit all of the elements of organizational crime as defined in the Criminal Code. The article also suggests that this is an example where legal imagination is important, in order to shift our collective understanding of what organizational crime is and where it occurs.