Clearview AI & Facial Recognition Technology: The End of Privacy?
Last month, after multiple denials, the Ontario Provincial Police admitted to using Clearview AI facial recognition technology. The Halifax Regional Police and members of the Edmonton Police Service also confirmed their officers had been using the software. Later, the RCMP followed suit, confirming their use of the software and prompting the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to announce an investigation.
R v Labaye and Sexual Expression
The Courts in Canada over time have developed and tinkered with tests to determine conduct that could be criminal due to being obscene and indecent. In R v Butler the test referred to a “community standards of tolerance test” which took into account harm. Over time, the tests have changed to become less subjective, and put more emphasis on harm as a principle.
R v DLW and the Sentience of Animals
In R v DLW, the Supreme Court looked at the definition of bestiality in the Criminal Code, and concluded in their majority decision that it required penetration, and that sexual activity with an animal or forced upon an animal were not sufficient to meet this definition. This case, as the Supreme Court held, was about statutory interpretation, not about animal rights. However, such a ruling seems to disconnect the law from the reality of the situation.
How Bill-36 Perpetuates Problems for Sex Workers in Light of Bedford
The Bedford decision looked at safety issues facing sex workers due to the restrictiveness of the criminal code provisions at the time. Before Bedford, sex workers could be convicted for selling their services out of a particular location, and they could not hire staff to make the selling of their services safer. In Bedford, it was ruled that these criminal code provisions infringed upon the rights of sex workers and government was given a year to change the provisions to mak
Judiciary Compromised by Biased Assumptions
Does there not need to be consistency in decisions by a body like the Canadian Judicial Council? How can you reconcile judicial decisions where the Council recommends removal of judges for victim-blaming comments with decisions where comments of a similar nature, reinforcing the same stereotypes, did not result in the same outcome?The purpose of this commentary is to compare and contrast two high profile cases, R v. Wagar, and R v. Ewanchuk.
