Currie Law Professional Corporation

Well, the Ghomeshi verdict - according to the Judge who heard all of the evidence and saw the complainants testify - was.... not guilty. Part of the epilogue was Ghomeshi's essay - which did not excuse his behaviour but delved into the aftermath of his very public professional and personal execution, despite the view of the Court. But the latest update is also disconcerting. The individual at the New York Times, who published Jian Ghomeshi's essay (below), is no longer wit...h the New York Times, given the hue and cry of some members of the public to Ghomeshi having the nerve to voice his perspective on his experience. There was serious concern to the Times selecting his essay for publication. We live in interesting times when the court of public opinion, often based on headlines and soundbites, can take precedence over a carefully reasoned judgement. I say this with the bias of being a criminal lawyer. But I am also a woman. While I think people should stand up for whatever they believe, I hope they only do so after they have taken the time to seriously consider the various facts and and varied perspective. https://www.nybooks.com/articl//10/11/reflections-hashtag/ See more

Impaired by Drug or Alcohol There are important new changes to the law as of December regarding driving with alcohol or drugs in your system of which you should be aware as should your children. Bill C-46 made reforms to both alcohol-impaired driving and drug-impaired driving. Police now have powerful new tools to detect and charge drivers. There are three big and controversial changes! 1. Random roadside breath testing...Continue reading

As a woman, I feel that the events of the last year may represent a sea change of attitude and responsibility for behaviour. If so, it will be a positive thing that both women and men can feel comfortable and supported when they speak out against harassment, abuse and sexual assault. But the fact that someone has rendered an accusation - does not make it so. The concept of due process is not just legal mumbo-jumbo. It is what separates our system of justice from the frailties of gossip, innuendo, miscommunication and dishonesty. I am concerned about the prospect of someoneanyone.making an accusation of any crime, that has far-reaching consequences without the corresponding scrutiny that makes up our law in a free and democratic society.

As a lawyer often focused on matters related to the cannabis plant and/or the criminal justice system, I applaud the government’s efforts to tackle the problem of impaired driving in this country. It is an important objective and I agree that Canadians should feel safe driving on our roads. However, there are serious reservations about the proposed Blood Drug Concentration Regulations. Someone could have a criminal record (with a summary conviction offence, punishable by a ...$1,000 fine,) if that individual is found to have between 2 and 5 ng/ml of THC in their whole blood within two hours of driving a vehicle or operating a conveyance. While reasonable individuals can disagree over the merits of testing of THC as a basis for criminal offences, we should strongly discourage the government from enacting a 2 ng / ml threshold that is punishable by a criminal offence. While an occasional user of cannabis may fall below the 2 ng/ml level a number of hours after ingestion, several studies have indicated that regular consumers of marijuana, such as those authorized to possess it for medical purposes, will often have levels of THC circulating in their blood above that threshold long after they have abstained from consuming cannabis. Two studies from 2009, including a study in the Journal of Analytical Toxicology and another one in the Addiction journal, concluded that after seven days of abstaining from cannabis, a significant number of regular cannabis users studied had more than 2 ng/ml of THC in their blood. This was found with both smoked cannabis and oral cannabis (such as sprays, edibles and tinctures). Therefore, this provision would disproportionately affect the 200,000 Canadians that are authorized to possess cannabis for medical purposes. It would also arbitrarily criminalize many lawful Canadians. The government has asserted that the 5 ng/ml threshold for a hybrid offence is linked to impairment, - but has also conceded that the 2 ng / ml threshold is not directly tied to impairment, but rather reflects a precautionary and crime prevention approach. I am not alone in this concern. The concern with the 2ng /ml threshold has been echoed by Canadians for Fair Access to Medical Marijuana, an organization which was consulted by both the cannabis legalization task force and the Parliament’s Standing Committee on Health during consideration of the upcoming federal cannabis act. We should not in good conscience support the implementation of an offence that carries with it a negligible nexus to criminality. We should strongly recommend that this provision not be included when the regulations are implemented.