DOCSLIB.ORG

78103NCJRS.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ~ j'l I , National Criminal Justice Reference Service I : L Ontario Criminal Justice Terminology i' j for I , I • nCJrs L" ' Statistical Data and I nformation Systems This microfiche was produced from documents receiv~d for inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on r \ this frame may be used to. evaluate the document quality. J • i . i 4 . , .. , 1 I ' ~ 1/11/2.8 2 5 W 11111 . I~ 1/,1/3.2 A proposal developed by Hoi 2.2 u.: w I~ i w I~ I ~ I,. 1.1 "" u - "'''" The Ministry of the Attorney General - r; The Ministry of Correctional Services ! ~ The Ministry of the Solicitor General The Provincial Secretariat for Justice ""'1.25 ""'1.4 ,11"11.6 )r; , I ' 1980 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART t J ~Aijct!Al BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963-A ""\" U.S. Department of Justice 78103 Nat/onallnslltute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the r. I person or organization originating it, Points of view or opinions stated 1 1 rn this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily Points of view or opin10':~s stated in this document are I Justice.represent the official position or policies of the NatiQnal Institute of those of the author(s) and do nqt represent the official Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. 'DATE FIl~MEDI' granted by the Provincial Secretarias f.or Hustice .' . 10108/811 f to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ Sion~urther of the r~produ~tion cOPYright owner. ( 1 J I " I 1. , Provincial Secretariat ® for Justice The Honourable Gord Walker Q.C. Ontario Provincial Secretary for Justice I I EVOLUTION OF PROJECT II In mid No\-~mber of 1978, the Provin~ial Secretariat for Justice in Ontario submitted a proposal to the National Work Group on Justice ·I~ Information and Statistics for development of common terminology to be used in the criminal justice area. The joint participants in this project I weF the Provincial Secretariat for Justice and the Ministries of the Attorney General, 'the Solicitor General and Correctional Services. In addition to the direct benefits to the Ontario criminal justice com­ I munity, the project was conceived as a model for other provinces Wld one which would also improve the status of national crimin~ justice INTRODUCTION I statistics. Development of common terminology was viewed as a major step toward the reduction of existing communications problef!1s within This document is intended as a reference to be employed within the adult ',and between Criminal Justice Ministries in Ontario. I criminal justice system of Ontario. The objective is to arrive at a common unde~'standing of terms used in compiling statistical data and in At its most fundamental level, the need for this project is based on I information s¥stems; the descriptions of these terms may differ there­ several key problems, the magnitude of which impedes valid, timely and fore in many instances from their legal definitions. I reliable interpretation of criminal justice terminology. It is hoped that this volume will be of use not only to the Ontario With the assistance of funds made available through the National Work Criminal Justice community but will also serve as a model for other I Group, Ontario was able to achieve its objective of developing an interim Provinces that may wish to engage iri similar initiatives. ar:td working draft.document o~ criminal justice terms and definitions in Ontario. Terms were identified and arranged in a Key-Word-In~Context I ' " forf!1 at for cross-referencing purposes. This first phase of the project [ took approximately three months and cUlminated· in the working draft I document (March 31, 1979) which was submitted to the National Work Grqup, and tabled at the Federal-Provincial Steering Commitee meeting I 'I of April 3, 1979. I I During the fiscal year of ,1979, again with financial assistance of Federal departments, the Ontario Project Group refi~ed and expanded the ( NCJRS working draft. The present document represents the results of those ;j I efforts. Because of the complexity and fluid nature of criminal justice I WAY 111981 terminology, this report should be viewed as a 'pilot document which the I project group expects to revise from time to time based on user I' ACQUISITIONS feedback and as changes are introduced in the criminal justice system. j \ .~-- ·'1' - i - I .11 -ii- , , I ,I ./ rl r I I I I' , I 'I CONTENTS I I ~ CJ-OOOl Abandon Child 1 I CJ-0002 Abandon an Appeal 'I 1 CJ-0003 Abandonment USE OF THIS DOCUMENT 1 CJ-0004 Abduction I 1 'I' CJ-0005 Abetting All entries have been alphabetized and each term carries a code which 1 I can be used as a reference number. Those terms which appear as i A.B.H. cf. Assault Causing Bodily Harm CJ-0006 Abortion synonY!lls to other terms are cross-referenced in the Index of Terms. I 1 I CJ-0007 Abrogate I 1 L CJ-OOOS Absolute Discharge Terms included in this document have several distinct features: Term i 2 Title; Definition; Synonym; Note. The latter two features are presented Abused child cf. Battered Child I CJ-0009 Accessory only when applicable. The information under Note provides added detail 2 ~ CJ-OOlO Accident .. which enriches the understanding of the term. Oftentimes, the reader is 2 CJ-OOll Accomplice I" directed to such sources as the Criminal Code of Canada for a fuller 2 rn CJ-OD12 Accused cf. Defendant context. 2 I· Accused person cf. Defendant CJ-OOl3 Acquittal Symbols and abbreviations used in this document are as follows: rn 2 Acquitted cf. Acquittal I CJ-OOl4 Act cf. Statute t Criminal Code of Canada rn 2 .. CJ-OOl5 Addict ( 3 I cf. Compare/contrast with; see Adjourned cf. Adjoumment m CJ-OOl6 Adjoumment 3 CJ-OOl7 Adjournment Sine Die R.S.O. ~~ ~ Revised Statutes of Ontario ~ 'f 3 ~ CJ-OOlS Adjudication 3 CJ-0019 Admission I U.C.R. Uniform Crime Reporting 3 CJ-0020 Admitting Officer rn 3 CJ-0021 Aduit * * Used to signify sIang 3 CJ-0022 Adult Training Centre ID 4 Adverse witness cf. Hostile Witness ), CJ-0023 Affidavit 4 ID CJ-0024 Affirmation 4 ~ A.G. cf. Attorney General I -iii- " n - iv - fl ---~, ---~, ---, .'~- -- 'J "'~"',_",,,~,,',":n,,,... ,,, ~".~,'.,_-.,,"~--"-"-" ~ ,.,""_."''''''"< ." ..._ , "0_ •• ~. , .,' "~·'T'~"""-_"""""' __ .' ......,.. ... ~.-,--......... _~".,,;., ... ,~~ •__ • .".,~, ... ~ ".' __'"" __~,,~,~ .... ~-.. {=-_"",".k~"" __ """,,.,,,...., . ., _'._ I I(, Page i Page I I! CJ-0058 CJ-0025 Aggregate Sentence 4 Bail Verification 8 CJ-0059 AKA - also known as cf. Alias Bail Violation 9 I I CJ-0060 CJ-0026 Alias 4 Barbituate 9 CJ-0061 Baton CJ-0027 Alibi 4 9 I CJ-0062 Batter.ed Child I CJ-0028 Amphetamine 4 9 CJ-0063 Beat CJ-0029 Appeal 5 9 CJ-0064 I CJ-0030 Appearance Notice 5 I Bench Warrant 9 CJ-0031 Appearance Result 5 Bench warrant to hold cf. Bench Warrant with Discretion CJ-0065 I CJ-0032 Appellant 5 ,I Bench Warrant with Discretion 9 CJ-0066 CJ-0033 Application 5 Bestiality 10 CJ-0067 CJ-0034 Apprehend cf. Arrest 5 Bigamy 10 I I CJ-0068 CJ-0035 Approved Instrument 5 Blackmail 10 CJ-0069 CJ-0036 Arraign 6 Bombing Incident 10 I CJ-0070 I CJ-0037 Arrest 6 Booking 10 CJ-0071 CJ-0038 Arrest Warrant 6 Bookmaking 10 ( CJ-0072 CJ-0039 Arson 6 I Break and Enter 10 CJ-0073 Bribery CJ-0040 Assault 6 11 ( CJ-0041 Assault Causing Bodily Harm 6 I Buggery cf. Sodomy CJ-0074 By-law CJ-0042 Assault Indecent on a Female 7 11 CJ-0075 CACP ( CJ-0043 L~ssault Indecent on a Male 7 11 II CJ-0076 CJ-0044 Assaultive 7 Calendar of Prisoners 11 CJ-0077 Camp ( CJ-0045 Assessment 7 11 ~ CJ-0078 CJ-q046 Attempt 7 Cannabis sativa 11 " CJ·,OO79 Case (Court) CJ-0047 ~ Attorney General ;", 7 ~ !' 11 CJ-0080 r CJ-0048 Audio Surveillance 7 ~ Case (Police) 11 CJ-0081 Case (Social) CJ-0049 Autopsy 7 12 CJ-0082 Case Law I CJ-0050 Autrefois Acquit 8 ~ 12 CJ-0083 CJ-0051 Autrefois Convict 8 Case, stated 12 CJ-0084 B & E cf. Break and Enter Caseload Management 12 I I CJ-0085 Backlog cf. Pending Caseloa.d Cases Added 12 ...... CJ-0086 [ CJ-0052 Bail '8 Cattle 12 U CJ-0087 Caution CJ-0053 Bail Estreat 8 1';' 12 CJ-0054 Bail Hearing 8 (\ C.C.J.C.C. cf. County Court Judges' Criminal Court ( CJ-0088 CJ-0055 Bail Hostel 8 :. 0 Certificate of Acquittal 12 CJ-0089 CJ-0056 Bail Review 8 Certifics.te of Conviction 13 CJ-0090 [ CJ-0057 Bail Supervision 8 U Certiorari 13 k"'~_ , , [, i 0 -v- - vi - -- " ~ .. { .' [I ~~ - ".-::--....~ .. -~ -,-._. ._._. ~-.- .. --..-. - - 'r_ ~'.-- "~." "' ... ->~,~ .~'''''~.~. __ '> _".. ,;0-,,,-, T"-, U; _,~ ... -._..... I I P~~ I ·1 I Page CJ-0091 Change of Venue 13 I ~.I CJ-0126 Contempt of Court CJ-0092 Charge 13 18 CJ-0127 Controlled Device I CJ-0093 Charged 13 I 18 , J CJ-0128 Convict (Noun) CJ-0094 Citizen's Arrest 13 U) CJ-0129 Convict (Verb) CJ-0095 Cla$ification 'of Inmates 13 .1 18 I I CJ-0130 Conviction CJ-0096 Clerk of the Court 14 18 CJ-0131 Coroner CJ-0097 Clerk of the Peace 14 I 18 I : : I I CJ-OI32 Coroner's Inquest CJ-0098 Client 14 18 ,j CJ-OI33 Coroner's Jury CJ-0099 Cocaine 14 18 I : .,1 I CJ-0134 Correctional Centre CJ-OI00 Codeine 14 19 I CJ-0135 Correctional Institute, Ontario CJ-OI01 Coercion 14 \! 19 I CJ-0136 Correctional Institution, Correctional Facmty I CJ-OI02 Collusion 14 ,j I 19 '[ CJ-0137 Correctional Officer CJ-OI03 Commissioner 15 19 1 CJ-0138 Corrupt CJ-OI04 Commit 15 I 19 I ! CJ-0139 Counsel for the Defence CJ-OI05 Commitment 19 15 CJ-0140 Count CJ-OI06 Common Law 15 19 I I CJ-0141 Counterfeit Currency 20 CJ-0107 Community Programs 15 oj CJ~,0142 County Court Judge CJ-OI08 1 20 ( Community Resource Centre 15 J \ .I CJ-0143 ! ~ County Court Judges' Criminal Court 20 CJ-OI09 Community Resources 15 I ' J CJ-0144 Court CJ-OllO Community Supervision 16 20 or CJ-0145 Court Administrator r CJ-Olll Community Service Order m 20 16 ;j CJ-0146 Court Docket CJ-01l2 /;;:.
Recommended publications
  • 11 GEO VI 1947 No 16 Magistrates' Courts

    11 GEO VI 1947 No 16 Magistrates' Courts

    122 1947, No. 16] Magistrates' Courts [11 GEO. VI NEW ZEALAND ANALYSIS Title. MisceZlaneous Provisi0n8 as to 1. Short Title. Commencement. Officers 2. Interpretation. 18. Penalty for assaulting officers. 19. Misconduct of officers. 20. Officers of Court not to act as PART I solicitors therein. CONSTITUTION AND ADMINISTRATION Sittings Magistrates' Coorls 21. Place of sittings. 3. Courts constituted. 22. Times of sittings. 4. Exercise of civil or criminal 23. Adjourned sittings. jurisdiction in Courts appointed. Magistrartes PART II 5. Appointment and qualifications. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 6. Salaries and allowances. 24. Criminal jurisdiction. 7. 'fenure of office. 25. J u r i sdi c t ion as to fugitive 8. E(1! officio functions of Magis­ offenders. trates. 26. Informations and complaints 9. Magisterial districts. to be filed in nearest Court. 10. Acting Magistrates. 27. Place of hearing of informa­ 11. Provision as to Magistrate in tions and complaints. Chatham Islwnds. 28. Criminal Record Book. Registrars 12. Appointment of Registrar. 13. Record of proceedings to be PART III kept by Registrar. 14. D"puty R,egistrars. CIVIL JURISDICTION AND TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS Bailiffs Aoti01l8 of Contraot and Tort 15. Appointment of bailiffs. 29. General jurisdiction in actions 16. Deputy bailiffs. on contract and tort. 17. Powers and duties of bailiffs. 30. Money recoverable by statute. 11 GEO. VI] Ma.gistra:tes' 001ll/'ts [1947, No. 16 123 31. J u r i sdi c t ion in actions for 55. Examination of wit n e s s e s recovery of land. abroad. 32. Landlord's right where ~ent 56. Persons who may take affidaVIts, is in arrear or prelIU8eS &c.
  • Criminal Code - General Remarks

    Criminal Code - General Remarks

    -.=a;.t II it If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. U.S. Departrrent of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this clilfl'~~G material has been granted by Public Domain/NIJ US Department of Justice to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the c~t owner. 'r 'T 'r -- T 'Y ., - • - , 'T .. • - • ISS .1. -.. ," 4.•• EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exaclly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the Nationat tnstltute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by Law Reform Commission of Canada to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis· sion of the copyright owner. Une edition fran<;aise de ce document de travail est disponible. Son titre est : LA JURIDICTION EXTRA-TERRITORIALE Available by mail free of charge from: Law Reform Commission of Canada 130 Albert St., 7th Floor Ottawa, Canada KIA OL6 or Suite 310 Montreal, Quebec H3B 2N2 ©Ministry of Supply and Services Canada Catalogue No.
  • Doing Talmud: an Ethnographic Study in a Religious High School in Israel

    Doing Talmud: an Ethnographic Study in a Religious High School in Israel

    Doing Talmud: An Ethnographic Study in a Religious High School in Israel Thesis submitted for the degree of “Doctor of Philosophy” by Aliza Segal Submitted to the Senate of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem May 2011 Iyyar 5771 This work was carried out under the supervision of: Prof. Marc Hirshman Dr. Zvi Bekerman Acknowledgements If an apt metaphor for the completion of a dissertation is the birthing of a child, then indeed it takes a village to write a dissertation. I am fortunate that my village is populated with insightful, supportive and sometimes even heroic people, who have made the experience not only possible but also enriching and enjoyable. My debt of gratitude to these villagers looms large, and I would like to offer a few small words of thanks. To my advisors, Dr. Zvi Bekerman and Professor Menachem (Marc) Hirshman, for their generosity with time, insight, expertise, and caring. I have been working with Zvi since my MA thesis, and he has shaped my world view not only as a researcher but also as an individual. His astute and lightening-speed comments on everything I have ever sent him to read have pushed me forwards at every stage of my work, and it is with great joy that I note that I have never left his office without something new to read. Menachem has brought his keen eye and sharp wit to the project, and from the beginning has been able to see the end. His attention to the relationship between structure and content has informed my work as both a writer and a reader.
  • Guide to the Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly

    Guide to the Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly

    Guide to Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly Published: June 2017 1 Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 3 2. Background Court Information ........................................................... 4 Civil (non-family) County Court System .................................................................. 4 Judicial Reviews at Administrative Court ................................................................ 9 3. Data Sources and Data Quality ....................................................... 11 Revisions ................................................................................................................ 13 4. Civil Court level data (CSV) Information .......................................... 14 5. Case Level Judicial Review Data (CSV) Information ....................... 24 6. Glossary .......................................................................................... 26 7. Useful Publications .......................................................................... 29 8. Contact details ................................................................................. 30 2 1. Introduction This document provides a guide to the Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly bulletin, focusing on concepts and definitions given in the publication and information relating to the revision policies, data sources, quality and dissemination. The Civil Justice statistical bulletin covers three key areas of civil and administrative justice: County court
  • FORFEITED Civil Forfeiture and the Canadian Constitution

    FORFEITED Civil Forfeiture and the Canadian Constitution

    FORFEITED Civil Forfeiture and the Canadian Constitution by Joshua Alan Krane A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws Graduate Department of the Faculty of Law University of Toronto © Copyright by Joshua Alan Krane (2010) FORFEITED Civil Forfeiture and the Canadian Constitution Joshua Alan Krane, B.Soc.Sc., B.C.L/LL.B. Master of Laws Faculty of Law University of Toronto 2010 Abstract The enactment of civil asset forfeiture legislation by Alberta and Ontario in the fall of 2001, followed by the passage of similar legislation in five other provinces, has signalled a dramatic change in the way Canadian constitutional law ought to be understood. This thesis builds on American legal scholarship by highlighting how deficiencies in Canada’s constitutional law could create space for more inva- sive civil forfeiture statutes. Following a historical overview of forfeiture law in Canada, the thesis (i) examines how the Supreme Court of Canada mischaracter- ized this legislation as a matter of property and civil rights; (ii) considers whether the doctrine of federal paramountcy should have rendered the legislation inoper- able and the consequences of the failure by the Court to do so; and (iii) evaluates -ii- the impact of the absence of an entrenched property right in the constitution, in regard to this matter. -iii- Table of Contents INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 1 The Aim of this Project..............................................................................
  • Canadian Criminal Law and Procedure

    Canadian Criminal Law and Procedure

    Federation of Law Societies of Canada National Committee on Accreditation Why Criminal Law Is a Mandatory Subject The study or practice of criminal law in other jurisdictions is not adequate preparation for Canadian criminal law and procedure. This is because there is no body of law or area of practice that is as culturally and politically driven as the law of crimes. As a result, in spite of many core similarities, the law of crimes varies dramatically from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. More importantly, each jurisdiction develops its own legal culture which must be understood before competence can be attained. This is particularly so in Canada. Four reasons can be identified. First, the criminal law of Canada is complicated by federalism in a uniquely Canadian way. The federal government holds jurisdiction over the definition of criminal law and procedure, but the administration of criminal justice falls within provincial jurisdiction. There is therefore an array of federal and provincial laws that touch the topic. Canadian practitioners must understand the subtle interplay of federal and provincial rules. Second, unlike the criminal law in some other common law states, common law offences are not permitted in Canada. More importantly, basic Canadian criminal offences are included in a criminal code that has no general part. In other words, the principles that identify and animate the criminal law are not found in the statutes but are buried as underlying principles in the case law. The law cannot therefore be understood simply by reading the Criminal Code and related statutes, or by relying on general principles of statutory interpretation, or even by reading the leading cases in a discrete area.
  • Warrant of Committal to Prison in The

    Warrant of Committal to Prison in The

    Warrant of Committal to prison In the Between County Court Applicant Claim No. Petitioner and Warrant No. Respondent Defendant Seal To GGG the District Judge and Bailiffs of the Court GGG every constable within his jurisdiction (1) (1) Name of Prison GGG the Governor (of Her Majesty’s Prison at) (2) Name and On the day of [19 ][20 ] , (3) address of person to be (enter name of judge) has ordered that (2) committed. of (3) (4) (4) Where the should be committed to Prison (detained under Section 9(1) Criminal Justice Act 1982) for person to be committed is a period of (5) aged less than 21 years and at least 18 delete all references to prison You the District Judge and Bailiff are therefore required forthwith to arrest and deliver otherwise (2) delete reference to Sec 9(1)CJA to (Her Majesty’s Prison at) (1) And you, the Governor, are required to receive and keep (2) (5) State term of imprisonment safely (in prison) from the arrest under this warrant for a period of (5) or until lawfully discharged, if sooner. (6) Add if so (6) [ And, as the court by order dated dispensed with service of the notice of ordered otherwise delete application for a committal order, It is ordered that you, the Governor, bring (2) before a judge of this court at such time and place as the court shall specify and afterwards, return him to the prison unless the court orders his discharge.] Date I arrested the person named in this warrant on (date) and delivered him into the custody of the Governor (of Her Majesty’s Prison) at (1) on (date) Bailiff of the County Court The Court Office is open from 10am to 4pm Monday to Friday Address all communications to the Court Manager and quote the above claim number.
  • History of the Criminal Law in Newfoundland and Labrador

    History of the Criminal Law in Newfoundland and Labrador

    HISTORY OF THE CRIMINAL LAW IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR “Now it is a terrible business to mark a man out for the vengeance of men. But it is a thing to which a man can grow accustomed, as he can to other terrible things… And the horrible thing about all legal officials, even the best, about all judges, magistrates, barristers, detectives and policemen, is not they are wicked (some of them are good), not that they are stupid (some of them are quite intelligent), it is simply that they have got used to it. Strictly they do not see the prisoner in the dock; they see the usual man in the usual place. They do not see the awful court of judgment; they only see their own workshop.” - Commissioner Antonio Lamer quoting from G.K. Chesterton who had sat on a jury almost 100 years ago and had been impressed by the fresh perspective that a jury could bring to the work of professionals who could become insensitive because of familiarity.1 From Settlement to Confederation Canada To understand the nature and purpose of criminal law as it applies in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is necessary to understand its sources.2 Our criminal law principles are founded on British Law as it became introduced into Canada, developed from colonial times. Under the British colonial system, the letters patent or instructions issued by the Crown to the Governor governed the constitution of a settlement. When unsettled territory was conquered by or ceded to England, it was a matter of royal prerogative whether the Crown would grant the territory its own constitution.
  • Developments in the Law ®F Criminal Conspiracy

    Developments in the Law ®F Criminal Conspiracy

    DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW ®F CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY PETER MAcKINNON* Saskatoon Introduction The origins of criminal conspiracy can be traced back a thousand years' though a study of this crime is not an antiquarian pursuit. The conspiracy offence has survived its own haphazard development and overcome the lack of a widely accepted rationale. It remains a pro- secutor's popular weapon, a defence counsel's nightmare and an academic's riddle . But it is changing. In the last few years some of the most difficult problems in the law of criminal conspiracy have been recognized and debated. It is my purpose to review these develop- ments, to comment on improvements where they have been made, and to discuss current problems in this complex area of our criminal law. 1981 CanLIIDocs 14 1. The Definition of Conspiracy and the Meaning ofAgreement. Canadian law owes its general definition ofconspiracy to the words of Mr. Justice Willes in the English case, Mulcahy v. Regina:2 "A conspiracy consists not only in the intention of the two or more but in the agreement oftwo ormore to do an unlawful act or to do alawful act 3 by unlawful means ." This definition is in substance incorporated into "4 . our Criminal Code under the heading "common law conspiracy English law has since included a statutory definition in legislation reforming the law of criminal conspiracy:' If aperson agrees with any other person orpersons thata course of conduct shall be pursued which wilt necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more ofthe parties tothe agreement if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question .6 * Peter MacKinnon, of the Faculty of Law, University of Saskatchewan, Saska- toon .
  • Offences Procedure

    Offences Procedure

    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. Ministry of the Attorney General , f !, PROV~NC~AL OFFENCES PROCEDURE \NAL YSIS AND EXPLANATION EGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ; ; APRIL,1978 '. PROVINCIAL OFFENCES PROCEDURE AN ANALYSIS AND EXPLANATION OF LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS: • ... - c:"'''" '\ ...i' ~ .......... -,.',\ • ,". ,. • ....:~ The Provincial Offences Act~ 19783113 and The Provincial Courts Amendment,'NC\1·~~tg:7~lS For additional copies of this publication write to: Communications Office, Ministry of the Attorney General, 18th Floor, 18 King Street East Toronto, Ontario M5C 1C5 .J TABLE OF CONTENTS Attorney General's Statement 1 Part I - An Analysis of the Provincial Offences Act, 1978 A. Principle Features 6 1. Classification 6 2. The Provincial Offences Court 7 3. Minor Offence Prosecutions: Certificate Procedure 8 4. Simplified Appeals for Minor Offences 12 5. Sentencing and Fine Enforcement 14 6. Arrest: No General Power 17 7. The Creation of a Self-Contained Code of Procedure 19 8. Parking Offence Procedure 20 B. Explanation Of The Act's Provisions 22 Part II - The Provincial Courts Amendment Act, 1978 A. Principle Features 92 t Creation of the Provincial Offences Court 92 2. Residual Power 93 3. Contempt of Court 93 B. Explanation Of The Act's Provisions 95 (, , I Statement by the Honourable R. Roy McMurtry, 'a.c., Attorney General for the Province of Ontario Many persons living in Ontario find the procedure which now governs the prosecution of provirlcial offences bewildering, expensive, time consuming and altogether disproportionate in gravity to those offences. This situation is redressed by the proposed Provincial Offences Act, which creates a clear, self~contained procedural code to simplify procedures, eliminate technicalities, enhance procedural rights and protections, and remove the obstacle of delay from the assertion of rights and the conclusion of prosecutions.
  • The Administration of Criminal Justice in Canada William B

    The Administration of Criminal Justice in Canada William B

    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 43 | Issue 1 Article 1 1952 The Administration of Criminal Justice in Canada William B. Common Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation William B. Common, The Administration of Criminal Justice in Canada, 43 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 2 (1952-1953) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN CANADA William B. Common William B. Common, Q.C. is Director of Public Prosecutions for the Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada. He has been associated with the Department of the Attorney General for twenty-five years and during that time has been actively en- gaged in prosecution at trial and in the Court of Appeal on many important criminal cases in the Dominion of Canada. He is considered an outstanding author- ity on the administration of criminal law in the Dominion of Canada and has lectured on specialized related subjects and contributed several articles to legal journals. Mr. Common is a graduate of the University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall Law School in the year 1923. For the past twelve years his activities have been confined exclusively to appellate work.-EDITOR. Much flattering comment has been made at different times respecting the Administration of Justice by the Canadian Government, particularly with regard to the speed with which criminal cases are handled.
  • Class Legal Webinar - 16Th June 2021

    Class Legal Webinar - 16Th June 2021

    CLASS LEGAL WEBINAR - 16TH JUNE 2021 Contempt of Court – All Change? Sir Jonathan Cohen and Nicholas Allen QC • Do the new streamlined and simplified rules change what constitutes contempt of court or just the procedure that has to be followed? • What is now required when making a contempt application - what must the application contain and what written evidence must be filed? What facts need to be asserted or proved? What notice needs to be given to the defendant? • When is legal aid available in civil contempt proceedings? • When will the court decide to hold the hearing remotely rather than in public? When does the court need to hear submissions from media organisations? • What is contempt in the face of the court and how will it be dealt with? • What punishments can the court now impose? • To what extent does the 2015 Practice Direction - Practice Direction on Committal for Contempt of Court in Open Court - still apply? Background 1) The original FPR Part 37 which came into force on 22nd April 2014 (coinciding with the launch of the Family Court) was closely modelled on CPR Part 81.1 2) A new version of Part 81 was substituted with effect from 1st October 2020. Part 37 was also reviewed and a new version, modelled on the new Part 81, also came into force on 1st October 2020.2 3) The new Part 37 reduces 38 rules to just to 10. 4) Contempt of court (described in r37.1(1) as “contempt proceedings”) can take many different forms. Helpfully there is now a common procedure for all of them.