Ongoing Intimate Image Distribution Case Promising Development - Shawn Eisler
As our world continues to shift further into the age of technology, lawmakers have been forced to expand our legal system in order to deal with the problems that have arisen as a result. One issue that has caused significant traction is the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, often referred to as “revenge porn”. In 2015, Manitoba became the first province to create legislation giving rise to the recovery of damages for this kind of behaviour.
Moving Towards Justice in R v Barton - Katie Rothwell
As a judge, one has a duty to uphold Canadian law to the highest standard and ensure fairness within the courtroom. R v Barton (“Barton”) is a clear example of when a trial judge fails to live up to this duty. Ultimately, in such circumstances, it is the victim and their family who suffer the consequences by not achieving justice in their case.
Bill C-36: More Harm Than Good? - Katie Rothwell
The landmark 2013 decision of Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford (“Bedford”) provided a glimmer of hope for sex workers across Canada when three provisions in the Criminal Code (“the Code”) were deemed unconstitutional and were struck down. Many advocates and sex workers hoped this was a move in the direction of Canada decriminalizing sex work. Instead, what resulted from Bedford was Bill C-36. Bill C-36 promised positive change for the sex work industry.
Sex Work and the Law - Dane Kingdon
Prostitution, sex work, the trade, and the world’s oldest profession are just some of the many names for the selling of sex. Canada has a very turbulent history with sex work and the law, seein sex work going from legal to illegal and finally to decriminalized throughout Canada’s history. For what some have called the world’s oldest profession you would think our legal system would have a solid understanding of how to treat sex work.
Moving in the Right Direction in the Wrong Way - Dane Kingdon
There is a fine line judges have to walk when interpreting statute. Their job is to interpret the law, not create it. It is the elected official’s job to actually create the law. In an ideal world this is simple, judges simply apply the rules as they are written. The problem is that often the laws are written with ambiguity, sometimes purposefully to allow them to be flexible and other times simply because of bad drafting.
