Reinforcing the Balance – R v Rafilovich 2019 SCC 51
Like the tock to a metronome’s tick, the rights of the accused are to serve as a balance, a counterweight, a complement to the rights and permissions of the Crown (or state). Nowhere is this more necessary than in the arena of criminal law. This idea is fleshed out in the case of R v Rafilovich 2019 SCC 51. A brief overview of the facts is helpful to set the stage, but it’s not necessary to dive in in full for the issue at hand.
When is an Eggplant Evidence of Sexual Harassment?: Interpreting Emoji Evidence in the Courtroom
Emojis, also known as the small picture-like icons used in online communications, revolutionized digital speech and enhanced text-based conversations with visual depictions.Ranging from smiley faces to weather, food, sports, symbols, and flags, nowadays there is practically an emoji for everything. Originally created in late 90s for Japanese mobile phones, emoji started gaining popularity in North America in the 2010s after being added to popular cell phone and computer opera
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.
