What Happens if My Friend Shoplifts?

Camilla’s high school is a ten-minute walk away from a mall so her and her friends usually go there during their lunch period.  In their most recent visit to the mall, Camilla and her friends go into a make up store because they want to buy the newest shade of nail polish.  While most of them grab a bottle and head to the checkout to pay, one of her friends, Natalie, says, “I’m just going to keep looking around.  I forgot my debit card so I’ll probably come back this weekend.”

Camilla is first in line at the checkout so when she is done paying for her nail polish, she goes to look for Natalie.  From a distance Camilla notices that Natalie is still in the aisle with the nail polish.  She continues to walk toward her and notices Natalie grab a bottle of the  nail polish off the shelf, throw it in her purse and then head in the opposite direction.

Camilla is shocked and doesn’t know what to do; she asks Natalie what she is doing. Natalie replies with a smile and tells Camilla “I’ll grab one for you too, act natural“. Camilla doesn’t want her to friend to be mad at her so she does as told.  One by one her friends finish cashing out and join her, then they all leave the store and head back to school since their lunch period is almost over.

http://postmediaottawacitizen.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/shoplift.jpg

 WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NATALIE IS CAUGHT?

If Natalie is caught shoplifting the nail polish, the store security may try to have her sign a document regarding the situation that asks her to take full responsibility for the incident and pay all of the related security costs. She does not have to sign this document but even if she does, she is not required to make the payment claimed.  The security may also keep her at the store until the police arrive but they must call the police within a reasonable time.

In Ontario law, you are responsible to compensate someone if you caused them harm by stealing things that belong to them or by trespassing on their property. However, if Natalie returns the nail polish that she stole, the stole will have lost no money as the shoplifted items have been recovered.

The store may also send a Civil Recovery Demand Letter. Stores often send these demand letters to people who have been caught shoplifting in their stores,or to parents of young people who have also been caught. These letters are often signed by a lawyer and demand payment of amounts in the range of $300.00 to $475.00 to a collection agency, called "Civil Recovery" claiming the security costs of detecting shoplifters in their stores. The letters sometimes suggest that if you don't pay by a certain date the amounts will increase.  If you do not pay, the store might also start a lawsuit.

It is important to know that Natalie and Natalie's parents do not have to pay the amount in the letter. It is simply a threat that cannot be enforced unless it is found to be a valid debt in Small Claims Court. Her family does not need to worry unless they receive a Statement of Claim in the mail. In Justice For Children and Youth's experience - this does not happen.

Natalie's parents can rest assured as well that no harm will come to their credit rating as a result of these letters. 

If the store chooses to call the police, she may be charged under s. 322 of the Criminal Code. This offence is for committing theft:  ...fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it.

WHAT ABOUT CAMILLA?

Camilla does not have a legal obligation to report Natalie’s theft to employees of the store, to the police or even to her parents. However, If Camilla does not try to stop Natalie or leave the situation, she may be charged as a party to the offence. This is a criminal offence in the Criminal Code of Canada. Under s.21 (1) of the Criminal Code, everyone is a party to an offence who: (a) actually commits it; (b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or (c) abets any person in committing it. Section 21(1) describes three situations where a person is a “party,” i.e., criminally responsible for the conduct of another. In order to be found guilty of the offence or for the charge to be reasonable, there must be some evidence that Camilla intended to assist Natalie  or that she stood somewhere so that the store wouldn't notice Natalie put the item in the bag. 

For more information on what shoplifting and Civil Recovery letters check out some of our past blogs and videos:

Past Blogs on Shoplifting

Part 1 - http://jfcy1.blogspot.ca/2010/10/guest-blogger-tracy-on-shoplifting.html

Part 2 - http://jfcy1.blogspot.ca/2010/10/guest-blogger-tracy-shoplifting-part-ii.html

Video – Civil Recovery Letters

http://jfcy1.blogspot.ca/2011/09/video-civil-recovery-demand-letters.html

Informational Pamphlet: Shop Lifting Demand Letters

http://www.jfcy.org/PDFs/ShopliftingDemandLettersApril%202012.pdf

Informational Pamphlet: Youth Criminal Court Guide

http://www.jfcy.org/PDFs/Charged_March2012.pdf

For further advice or information:

Justice for Children and Youth (if the letter involves a person under 18) GTA: 416-920-1633

Elsewhere in Ontario: 1-866-999-5329

Your local community legal aid clinic: www.legalaid.ca

Lawyer Referral Service 1-900-565-4577 or if under 18 call 1-800-268-8326 (no charge)

This blog scenario was written by Marsha Rampersaud, a volunteer on the JFCY's PLE Team. The legal content was written by Lauren Grossman, a first year law student at the University of Toronto who is volunteering at JFCY as the PLE team leader through her law school's Pro Bono Students Canada program. All legal content was reviewed by a JFCY lawyer.

Theft in a Shopping Mall

  

http://images.clipartof.com/small/76396-Royalty-Free-RF-
Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Brunette-Girl-Shoplifting-In-A-Store.jpg

Shirley is a 18 year old high school student.  Both her parents work during the day, so they only see her at night. She makes her own breakfast and dinner, and travels to school on her own. She is always studying and receiving good marks for her studies. On her birthday, she wanted her parents to take a day off to spend it with her, but they were too busy and couldn’t go. Shirley was sad but her friends tried to cheer her up and persuaded her to go out to the mall and watch a movie. They arrived at the shopping mall first and they separated ways looking for different clothes. She came across a jewelry store and decided to steal something.  Shirley looked around to see where the cameras were and kept eyeing a necklace in the corner of the store. She slightly opened her bag and slipped the necklace in while nobody was looking. Slowly, she headed towards the exit and had her head down. The alarm went off and the salesperson approached her asking if she could take a look at her bag. The salesperson then found the necklace which she didn’t pay for and called mall security. Her parents arrived at the scene and took her home. Shirley has never committed any type of crime before and she admitted to the security that she had stolen the necklace. The necklace itself was $20 and she handed it to the security.

What will happen to Shirley?

i) Store Security Guard May Try to Have Shirley Sign a Document Requiring Payment Before Allowing Her to Leave the Store.

Shirley does not have to sign this document and even if she does sign the document, she is not required to make the payment claimed. It is not legal for someone to threaten to have you charged by the police if you do not sign a document or do not agree to pay them money. It is not legal for someone, other than a police officer, to refuse to let you leave if you do not sign a document. It is legal for the security guard to keep you at the store until the police arrive. If they do call the police, they must do so within a reasonable time.

ii) Store Security May Call the Police

When the police arrive, they may decide to charge Shirley with theft. They might ask her to appear at the police station for photograph and fingerprints and to appear in court. The police may give Shirley an Appearance Notice that sets out the date, time, and location of her required appearances for the identification process and for court. It is a criminal offence to not attend for either of these purposes. If she fails to go, she will likely be arrested and charged with further criminal offences. If Shirley does not receive notice of a court date, she was not charged with an offence.

iii) Shirley May be Charged with an Offence

The police may charge Shirley under the Criminal Code of Canada section 322. This offence is for committing theft: "...fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it."

Section 322 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines when the time of the theft occurs. As Shirley concealed the jeweler item on her person (in her bag) it is possible that a court may view this as “moving” the property such that the theft occured upon her putting the jewelry in her bag: “A person commits theft when, with intent to steal anything, he moves it or causes it to move or to be moved, or begins to cause it to become movable.”  

However, it is important to be established whether Shirley intended to pass the cashier or exit or did in fact pass the cashier and exited the jewelry store with the necklace in her bag. 

Furthermore, because she is over 17 she will be charged as an adult and not under the Youth Criminal Justice Act

iv) The Store May Send Shirley a Civil Recovery Demand Letter

Some retail stores send demand letters to people who have been caught shoplifting or to parents of young people who have been caught. In this case, the store has recovered the item Shirley had stolen as she admitted the theft and rightfully handed it back to the security. Therefore, the store will not be claiming the value of the jewelry item that was stolen but will be claiming security costs; the costs associated with detecting shoplifters in their stores. The letters are often signed by a lawyer and demand payment of amounts in the range of $300.00 to $475.00 to a collection agency. The letters themselves are not the same as a court order and she can choose to pay the amount or not. If she does not pay, the store can start a lawsuit. However, it is rare for the lawyer or company to follow up with a court action if someone refuses to pay. So, she can choose to ignore the letter. Because the item has been returned, it really is Shirley’s decision whether she feels morally obligated to pay any money to the store without a court order.

v) Shirley May Not be Allowed to Enter the Store or the Mall for A Period of Time

The security may issue a notice under the Trespass to Property Act banning Shirley from their stores. Shirley should take this very seriously and not return to the store or the mall until the requisite time period has elapsed. If she does return before this time, she will be trespassing as she is on the property without permission and could be charged.


This scenario was written by Ying Yi, a volunteer on JFCY's PLE team. The legal content of this blog post was written by Lauren Grossman, a first year law student at the University of Toronto who is volunteering at JFCY through her law schools Pro Bono Students Canada program. All legal content was reviewed by a JFCY lawyer. JFCY's legal content is based on the laws in Ontario relevant to youth under the age of 18.

Facebook & the Law...




https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.facebook.katana

It is no secret that teenagers have come to rely on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to document every aspect of their lives. It is easy to get lost in the online world of social media and think that because you’ve set your profile to “private”, what you post online will have no repercussions. This blog post will outline some of the possible consequences of documenting too much of your information through social media.

It has become increasingly known that many employers do a Facebook search of their potential employees before they even have a chance to introduce themselves. In most cases, these searches will turn employers away from the candidate before even interviewing them. However, what is not as well known is the fact that universities do the same. According to a Kaplan Test Prep survey from 2011, 24% of college admission officers in the United States admitted to using social networks such as Facebook to learn more about their candidates (Schaffer and Wong). 

What is perhaps more important to know is that even if you’ve set your profile to “private”, Facebook reserves the right to “access, preserve and share information when [they] have a good faith belief it is necessary to: detect, prevent and address fraud and other illegal activity” (Facebook), as outlined in their privacy policy. This means that what you post online can and will be used against you if you are suspected of committing a crime. We need only look at the recent arrest of 18-year-old Jacob Cox-Brown to realize the repercussions of some status updates: Jacob, who hit two cars while driving under the influence and fled the scene, proceeded to post about it on Facebook: “Drivin drunk... classic ;) but to whoever’s vehicle i hit i am sorry. :P” (qtd. in Gorrow). A few of his “friends” contacted the local police, who until then had no leads on the perpetrator of the hit-and-run. While the Facebook evidence was not enough to convict Jacob of drunk driving, they were able to match the car registered to Jacob’s name to the damage done at the hit-and-run scene. Consequently, Jacob was charged with “failure to perform the duties of a driver” (Gorrow).

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2013/01/04/teen-facebook-drunk_620x350.jpg

Another, more surprising example of Facebook information use by the government is the story of Paula Asher. Paula is an 18-year-old girl who landed in jail for refusing to take down her Facebook page after she posted prior to her court date: “My dumbass got a DUI and hit a car LOL” (qtd. in Ashe), which the judge was not very pleased with.

Facebook information is also often used local high schools when problems in a school arise. Students in Ontario who use Facebook as a means to bully students in their schools can be suspended or in some cases expelled. The Education Act states in s. 306 (1)(6) that a principal must consider suspending you if you bully someone. S. 310(1)(6) of the Education Act goes on to state that a principal must consider expelling you:
a)  if your bullying is motivated by bias (i.e. race, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality, disability or more) OR
b) previously have been suspended for bullying and create an unsafe risk to the safety of another student. 

Posting hurtful comments on Facebook about other students at your school qualifies as an act that will impact the school climate regardless of whether you posted these comments off school property or out of school hours. It is easy for this information to come to the attention of the school administration; your posts can be printed by any of your friends or by the person who your comments may be directed too.  Any posts on Facebook that are threatening or point to a pattern of harassment or other criminal activity can be used as evidence in court for criminal charges or civil law suits. 

As these and many other stories show, it is important to know where your information is stored, for how long, and most importantly, who can access it. As a press release from Astoria police read, “When you post [...] on Facebook, you have to figure that it is not going to stay private long” (qtd. in Gorrow).

References

Ashe, Dru. “Teenage Girl Sent to Jail After Posting About Her DUI Charge on Facebook.” Complex Tech. 20 September 2012. Web. http://www.complex.com/tech/2012/09/girl-ends-up-in-jail-over-facebook-status-of-her-dui-charge. Accessed 17 January 2013

Facebook. “Data Use Policy: Some other things you need to know.” Facebook. 11 December 2012. Web.  https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/other. Accessed 17 January 2013

Gorrow, Chelsea. “Facebook post lands Astoria man in jail.” The Daily Astorian. 4 January 2013. Web. http://www.dailyastorian.com/free/facebook-post-lands-astoria-man-in-jail/article_f7f0ddf6-55d6-11e2-b3d7-0019bb2963f4.html. Accessed 17 January 2013

This scenario was written by Naiara Toker, a volunteer on JFCY's PLE team. All legal content was reviewed by a JFCY lawyer. 

JOYRIDING

Jessica, a 14-year-old high school student, wanted to go to the mall with her friends after school. Neither she nor her friends, being the same age as her, had a license to drive to the mall and the mall was too far to walk to. At the same time, some of her friends did not have money to spend for bus fare. Jessica then remembered that her parents have gone out of town for a couple of days and that her older sister would have a long day at school in university and thus would not be at home. 

With that in mind, there was a car parked in Jessica's garage without anyone using it. A thought came to her… she could always use her parents’ car and put more gas in to compensate to what she would be using that day before returning it home. In this case, no one in her family would ever find out that the car has been driven at all. At the same time, she thought that her allowance money being spent on gas would take her to more places in comparison to spending on different trips for bus fare. “A good idea,” Jessica thought.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/sde/lowres/sden651l.jpg

After school, Jessica and her friends decided to walk to her house, which was only a kilometer away from school. Jessica did not call her parents and her sister for permission since the likelihood of being able to drive the car without a license was zero. Jessica then walked into her parents’ room and grabbed the car key. She turned on the engine, opened the garage door, and reversed. With a full passenger car, Jessica was excited that she was able to drive her friends to the mall, especially those that did not have any money for bus fare. Also, it was quite thrilling for her since she had never driven a car before, though she was very familiar with go-karting and race car video games. What could go wrong anyways? She watched how her parents drove all the time whenever she was sitting in the front seat.

What is Joyriding?

Joyriding is a criminal offense that is punishable in court. It is a slang term given to an offence in the Criminal Code of Canada. This is an offence resembling theft which is described as taking a motor vehicle and operating it without the owner's consent.

The Criminal Code Offence:

Section 335 of the Criminal Code, an Offence Resembling Theft says: "Everyone who, without the consent of the owner, takes a motor vehicle or vessel with intent to drive, use, navigate or operate it or cause it to be driven, used, navigated or operated is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."

Jessica’s friends can also be charged under this section for being aware of the situation: " ...[O]r is an occupant of a motor vehicle or vessel knowing that it was taken without the consent of the owner, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."

Youth Criminal Justice Act

Because Jessica and her friends are only 14, if charged, they will be charged under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.  A charge under the Act says that young people between the ages of 12 and 18 will be made to appear in Youth Justice Court. If Jessica or her friends are convicted, the given sentence will be decided by the penalties set out in the Youth Criminal Justice Act

Ontario Laws:

Jessica is also violating provincial laws by driving without a license. According to Ontario Highway Traffic Act, 37.(1) " No person under the age of sixteen years shall drive or operate a motor vehicle, street car, road-building machine, self-propelled implement of husbandry or farm tractor on a highway."

The scenario for this post was written by Karen Jacobe, a JFCY volunteer on the PLE Team.  The legal info was written by Lauren Grossman, a first-year law student at U of T who is volunteering at JFCY through her law school’s Pro Bono Students Canada program. All info was reviewed by a JFCY staff lawyer

"Vitamin R"

On a Thursday afternoon, two friends, Alex and Mike, headed down to their school cafeteria to break for lunch before their next class. After buying their lunches, they looked for a place to sit down. The cafeteria was quite full that day, and so there were few places for them to eat their lunches. Since the weather was nice outside, they decided to have lunch on the steps outside of their high school.

As they sat down, another student walked towards them. Neither Alex nor Mike had seen the student before, though they could tell by his uniform that he belonged to their school. The student took a seat next to them and whispered, "Hey, you guys want to have some fun today?" Alex and Mike looked at each other for a moment and curiously shrugged their shoulders. "We might," Alex said. "Why, what's your deal?"

The student took out a small bag from his pocket. Inside were five blue capsules. In a quiet voice he explained what was in the bag. "These are Ritalin pills. Me and my friends call them Vitamin R," he said. "When you take a few of these, it's like you're a genius. You'll feel super focused, like you can tackle anything."

Mike responded, "I've never heard of these before.  Where'd you get them?" The student paused for a second before answering the question. "I know a guy whose older brother had ADHD.  He used to take the pills to help him concentrate, but he went away to university.  My friend tells me that there are a bunch of these pills left over in his house now. So, he gives some to me too. Would you guys be interested in buying some from me or what?"

Looking uncertain, Alex asked, "But what if we get caught with these things? We'd probably get suspended or something?" The student responded, "No way man, prescription drugs aren't as bad as weed or alcohol. There really isn't much to worry about." Mike then asked, "You're certain?" The student confidently answered, "Yes."

Mike and Alex then handed the student some money in exchange for the pills.

Is it illegal to buy prescription drugs outside a pharmacy, or to use them for non-prescription reasons?

You need a prescription to buy prescription drugs (certain kinds of medication) for a few reasons.  Prescription drugs usually contain chemical ingredients that can be dangerous if taken in the wrong amount or in the wrong combinations.  One of the roles of a pharmacist is to help you understand how to take a drug correctly – for example, whether you need to eat food at the same time you take a pill, or whether two different drugs will work incorrectly if taken together, even though they would both work well on their own.  Getting a prescription filled at a pharmacy helps to make sure you have all the right information before you start taking a drug, so that it doesn’t hurt your body.  Another reason that you need a prescription for medication is that medications can be harmful in large quantities.  Prescriptions help make sure only people who need certain drugs are getting them.  Similarly, some drugs can be addictive and addiction can damage people’s lives and relationships.  Since prescriptions control access to drugs, they are one way of preventing addiction to drugs that might be helpful for a medical treatment but addictive if not used correctly.

If you have a prescription for a drug, it is legal for you to “possess” (have) that drug.  If you don’t have a prescription, and you buy the drug from someone other than a pharmacy, then it may be illegal for you to have the drug.  All drugs fall within a Canadian criminal law called the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act  (CDSA), and possession of them can be a crime.  The Act has five big sections called “schedules,” and each one contains lists of different kinds of drugs.  If you have a drug that is in Schedule I, II, or III, and you don't have a prescription for it, you are committing a criminal offence called "possession."  Selling these drugs illegally is called "trafficking."  Buying prescription drugs in these categories outside a pharmacy is no different than buying other kinds of illegal drugs, like cocaine or marijuana – you can still get in trouble with the law.

Ritalin, the drug sold to Mike and Alex, has an active ingredient called methylphenidate, which is listed under Schedule III of the CDSA.  This means that Mike and Alex are in illegal possession of the drug. And, it means that the other student is illegally trafficking the drug.

The bottom line: Buying, selling, and possessing prescription drugs without a prescription is a criminal offence, and can lead to negative consequences.  Depending on which prescription drug is involved, it can even be more serious than other illegal drugs.

This blog post was written by PLE Team Member and JFCY Volunteer Stefan Venier.  Legal information by JFCY.
If you are a youth in Ontario facing criminal drug charges or have legal questions about drug charges, please contact a lawyer at JFCY at 416-920-1633, or toll-free at 1-866-999-5329.  You can also read our Youth Guide to Criminal Justice for more information about going to criminal court as a young person.

What does it mean to be charged with a crime?

In order for you to be charged with a crime in Canada, that behaviour has to be prohibited by a law. You can find most of the offences that young people are charged with in the Criminal Code, or in a related statute (for instance, if it is a drug offence, you might find it in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act).


Every crime has two elements—a prohibited act (or actus reus) and a criminal fault (or mens rea).


Actus Reus


The Actus Reus is pretty basic—the Criminal Code states that it is illegal to do a certain action, like steal another person’s things, or to fail to do a certain action, like provide the things your children need to live. The words that are used in the provision are really important to understanding what exactly is considered to be a crime.


For instance, when you think about robbery, you might think about a holdup of a convenience store. And that would definitely be a robbery. But the wording of the provision in the Criminal Code that prohibits robbery includes a lot more than that. For instance, under s. 343(C) of the Criminal Code, robbery also includes assaulting someone with the intent to steal from him or her. This means that you can be guilty of robbery even if you don’t actually steal anything, as long as you intend to steal something when you assault someone. And the Criminal Code defines assault broadly. It includes applying force in order to harm someone without their consent. It also includes making threats to apply force to someone, and impeding someone or begging while openly carrying a weapon. So you could be convicted of a robbery for making threats to harm someone, or begging or impeding someone while openly carrying a weapon (the prohibited action), as long as you have the intent to steal.


Mens Rea


This raises the second element of a criminal offence—the criminal fault, or mens rea. Sometimes, people call this the "guilty mind." The intent to threaten/hit and steal is the mens rea for robbery. The idea of the mens rea is that someone should not be found guilty of a crime if they don’t have the required level of fault. So, in the robbery example, you could not be convicted of robbery if you impeded someone while openly carrying a knife, when you did not also have the intent to steal. (But you could probably be convicted of assault).


Different crimes in the Criminal Code have different levels of fault associated with them. You might find them in the section—look for words like “intent,” “knowingly,” “for the purpose of”, “recklessly” or “negligently” for clues. Other times, however, the Court has decided the level of fault associated with a given crime while it is hearing a case.


So, when the Crown attorney (the government lawyer) goes to Court to prove someone committed a crime, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person both committed the act and that they had the guilty intent. If they can’t prove both the act or the required level of intent, that person cannot be convicted or found guilty of that crime.


Want to understand the actus reus (prohibited action) and the mens rea (criminal intent) for other criminal offences?  You can look up the definition of an offence in the Criminal Code of Canada.


This post was written by Krista Nerland, a PLE Team Member and JFCY volunteer.  Krista is a first year law student at the University of Toronto. Legal info was reviewed by JFCY.

New Video: Age of Consent

Check out JFCY’s new video on age of consent.  For those of you who want the details in brief, there's a quick summary of the law below:

Consent to sex is always your decision – The Canadian law requires that all people participating in sexual activity must give their own consent: you decide whether you want to be involved in any kind of sexual activity, from kissing and touching to intercourse.  


However, the law sets some limits on that, so that it is illegal if you are below a certain age to be sexually involved with certain other people. This means that if you are too young to consent to sex with a particular person, that older person could be charged with a criminal offence. 

When are you old enough to legally consent to sexual activity?

If you are…

• 12 or 13, you can consent to sex, but only with someone less than two years older than you.
• 14 or 15, you can consent to sex, but only with someone who is less than 5 years older than you. But, you CAN'T consent to sex with someone who is more than two years younger than you (or you could be charged).
• 16 and older, you can consent to sex with anyone older than you. 
• In all of these cases, however, if you are under 18, you cannot legally consent to sex with someone who is in a position of trust or authority over you (like your teacher, swim coach, Pastor). That person could be charged with a criminal offence.

Read the law: Criminal Code of Canada, s.150.1-153.


Thanks to PLE Team Volunteers Terence Chen (actor and video-editor), Lucas Treleaven (actor and script-writer), Arif Hussain (director), Tracy Chen (filming), Cydney  Kim (brainstorming),  Christine Doucette (law student advisor) and Andrea (script, JFCY lawyer supervisor) for their work on this video!

Drunk Driving

Scenario (by Cydney Kim)

Michael and Fred are 16 year old friends who love parties. One night, they decide to attend a party at the other end of town. Michael arranges to be picked up by his parents late at night. When Fred’s 20 year old brother drops the two friends off at the party, he leaves his car there for Fred to use.

The party is far from over when Michael suddenly gets a headache and decides to go home. Although Fred offers to drive him home in his brother’s car, Michael is unsure whether Fred can actually drive. Fred assures him that he has just received his ‘G1’ and has been taking driving lessons. However, Michael refuses and Fred drives off alone in anger.

Meanwhile, Michael’s parents are at home enjoying a bit of whiskey. When they receive Michael’s call, they don’t feel drunk at all and head towards the party, with Michael’s mom driving. As soon as Michael steps into the car, he senses that his parents seem a bit weird but he doesn’t say anything and they head home. 

Both Fred and Michael’s mom get stopped by the cops that night.

What are Fred’s legal issues?  What are Michael’s mom’s legal issues? 

Both Fred and Michael’s mom could be charged with criminal offences as a result of their actions.

Adult charges

If Michael’s mom had enough alcohol, she could be charged with impaired driving. Impaired driving, which means driving while your ability is affected by alcohol or drugs, is a crime under the Criminal Code of Canada under Section 253(1)(a). Across Canada, it is a criminal offence to operate a vehicle while impaired and/or while having a blood alcohol content  of 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood or more. If someone is convicted, they can lose their license, be fined, or spend time in jail. The vehicle does not even have to be moving; you can be charged if you are impaired behind the wheel, even if you have not started to drive.

Youth Charges

Fred’s legal issues are different since he is 16 years old and does not have a licence. He could still be found guilty of the same criminal offences as Michael’s mom.  However, different procedures apply to Fred since he is under age 18. The Youth Criminal Justice Act applies to his situation, and this changes the way the police officer must interact with Fred. For example, s. 146 of the Act imposes a different way to obtain evidence, not binding youth to certain written and/or oral statements. He has the right to have a parent present when he is being questioned by the police.  The Act also leaves open a larger and more varied sentencing options and ways of resolving cases.  If Fred decides to plead guilty, or loses a trial, he would not be “convicted” of the offences.  Unlike adults, youth are “found guilty”.  (The records system for youth is also very different than for adults, but that is a story for another day…)

Graduated Licensing

In Ontario, as of August 1, 2010 fully licensed drivers who are 21 and under or a novice driver in the Graduate Licensing System (GLS), caught with any alcohol in their blood, will receive an immediate 24-hour roadside driver license suspension and, if convicted, face a fine of $60-$500 and a 30-day license suspension.

Driving with a G1 without a fully licensed supervisor is a separate offence which would result in the temporary suspension of Fred’s licence. 


If you are a youth charged with an offence, check this info pamphlet for more info.

Cydney Kim is a grade 11 student at University of Toronto Schools. She wrote the fact scenario.  The legal information was written by McGill law student Jesse Gutman and JFCY lawyers.

Public nudity - the cure for summer heat?

Blog post by Bianca (Summer law student at JFCY)

Currently, section 174 of the Criminal Code prohibits nudity in a public place, or exposing yourself to the public in a private place. But this may not necessarily be the case for long. If Brian Coldin gets his way, we just might start seeing more people walking around in their birthday suits.

On July 5^th, Coldin, a self-proclaimed nudist, appeared in court (with six naturists there to support him) to answer criminal charges under the previously mentioned section, after appearing naked at a Tim Hortons and A&W in Bracebridge, Ontario.

Employees at Tim Hortons and A&W testified that seeing his genitals made them feel uncomfortable, while some cried when explaining the situation to the court. However, not only did his lawyers refute the charges by saying that Coldin was wearing a towel at the time, they also argued that the laws are unconstitutional and violate one’s right to freedom of expression. Coldin said that “it’s about rights and the abuse of freedom of a person and their expression…It doesn’t mean the fear that rampant naked people running all over the place is going to take place.”

The case will resume on September 28^th, at which date the judge will rule on the constitutionality of the nudity laws and whether Coldin is in fact guilty.

What are your thoughts on public nudity? Should it be a criminal offence, or do you view it as a harmless act that doesn’t require punishment?

Recent news articles on public nudity: 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1020155--naturists-turn-out-in-support-of-nudist-on-trial-in-bracebridge 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/do-canadians-have-the-right-to-be-naked/article2086219/

Sexual assault in the world of dating

Blog post by volunteers Josh (U of T undergrad student) and Bianca (law student)

Scenario

Meet Annie: a normal 16-year old girl. She is smart, pretty, and well liked by both her peers and teachers.  And when popular jock Scott Herring asked her out, she agreed. She was nervous because she had never dated before, but was excited because Scott was very cute.

It was a Saturday evening. After promising her parents that she would return home by curfew, Scott, a senior, picked her up in his Honda Civic and drove them to a local drive-in theatre.

Upon arriving at the theatre, they found themselves surrounded by a sea of cars- and in each car a coupled pair. As the credits rolled and the movie began, Scott with his arm wrapped around her, urged her towards his body. “Let’s snuggle,” he suggested. Obliging, though awkwardly, she leaned her head on his shoulders as she had watched the heroine of the movie do the same. Yet while the heroine expressed love and happy feelings, all Annie felt was discomfort and fear.

Scott, however, had something else on his mind and with his arms still wrapped around her, began to slowly inch his hand downwards and towards her breast. He began to grope her. Annie distraught by the invasion of privacy said “Stop!” as she tried to ply his hands away. Scott continued to grope and feel.

“No!” Annie yelled, now trying to push him back so she could make a move for the door. Scott shoved her back down, gripped her firmly. Eventually, she yelled at the very top of her lungs until Scott let go and Annie ran out of the car.

What are the legal issues in this scenario?

Sexual Assault

In such a situation, Scott may be charged with sexual assault and made to attend court. In order for him to be found guilty, it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott engaged in a sexual act without Annie’s consent, and intended to do so.

Consent

Consent means that a person agreed voluntarily to take part in the act. If one does not voluntarily agree, then there is no consent.

Even if one starts to take part in the sexual activity, they can decide afterwards that they don’t want to continue, meaning that there is no longer consent. After they communicate that they no longer consent, the other person(s) must stop immediately.

In Annie’s case, she yelled ‘no’ and tried to push Scott away, making it clear that she did not consent to any sexual activity with Scott. Disagreement to take part in a sexual act can be established by a person’s words or actions, or both.

Annie`s Rights

Anniehas every right to talk to the police and report the crime. The earlier you report the crime, the higher the chance that the police will be able to find relevant evidence.

The police will usually ask the victim to provide a statement and answer questions as to what happened before they investigate. If there is enough evidence, the police will produce a report recommending charges.

After going to the police, the victim has the right to receive regular updates from the police about their case and ask for special measures so they do not have to see the defendant if they are intimidated or vulnerable.

It is very common for a person in who goes through such an experience to experience a variety of different emotions, such as embarrassment, anger or shame. But a person in Annie’s situation should know that she or he is not alone as there are a variety of resources available to help deal with their feelings and offer advice:

Kids Help Phone: 1-800-668-6868

Assaulted Women’s Helpline: (416)863-0511, outside GTA: 1-866-863-0511

Justice for Children and Youth: (416) 920-1633, 1-866-999-5329 (outside GTA)

Scott`s Rights

Because Scott is under age 18, he must be dealt with under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. He has the right to have his parent present when being questioned by the police.  He has the right to a lawyer.  He has the right to silence.

For more information on charges and procedure under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, check out these resources:

If you are young person in Ontario and you need a lawyer to represent you, call Legal Aid Ontario: (416)598-0200, 1-800-668-8258 (outside GTA), or Justice for Children and Youth (416) 920-1633, 1-866-999-5329 (outside GTA)

 For further reading on issues relating to sexual assault and youth, see these links:

 Teens and sexual assault (from the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres)

Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children (METRAC)

Guest Blogger Yasmin Rajabi on School Bullying

Yasmin is a grade 10 student in Toronto and a volunteer member of JFCY's Public Legal Education Committee.  She has written a blog on bullying. 

Consider Yasmin’s scenario:

Harry’s books were once again knocked out of his hands. His heartbeat sped up and his palms became slippery with sweat. “Move, this hallway isn’t for losers,” Tom sneered at Harry.  Harry was pushed aside roughly as Tom pushed past him.  Tom walked a couple of steps before turning back. “I better not see you in this hallway again or else…” Harry’s stomach filled with dread…what was he supposed to do?

Harry decided to ignore Tom's threats, it's not like he would go through them, right?

Harry got home that day and checked his Facebook account, waiting for his cousin Phil to come online. With a sense of dread Harry noticed that Tom was online. The chat bar opened.

Tom: “You're such a loser Harry, no wonder you don't have any friends. Why don't you just help us all and not show your face around school anymore.  Otherwise, there could be trouble for you…”

Harry logged off after reading Tom's message. He didn't want to be scared anymore, he felt that he had to do something. He decided to tell someone.

The next day Tom was called to the office by his Vice-Principal, Mr. Vandelay, who said:

"Tom, Harry has been telling me that you've been bullying him inside and outside of school. I’m going to have to suspend you…"

Legal Information on Bullying from JFCY:

Here is some general legal information about bullying.  For specific advice, contact a lawyer!

Education Law Issues: Students have the right to feel safe at school and learn in an environment that is free of harassment. As a result, school principals have the legal power to impose discipline on students who bully other students, teachers and school staff. Sometimes students who bully others can be suspended or expelled for their conduct.  Bullies can sometimes be disciplined for conduct that takes place away from school—such as online on Facebook—if there is evidence that the conduct makes another person feel unsafe at school or otherwise impacts the school climate.

Criminal Law Issues: In most cases, school Principals will contact the police if the bullying involves violence or a threat to the safety and security of the student or others at the school.  Bullying can sometimes lead to criminal charges, such as assault, uttering threats and criminal harassment. Sometimes the criminal charges can lead to a situation where the police and/or the Court will prohibit the bully from going back to the school. This can sometimes be the case even if the bully was not suspended or expelled. 

If you are a youth and require more information on legal issues relating to bullying, school discipline and criminal law, please contact JFCY at 416.920.1633 or toll-free at 1.866.999.5329 to speak with a lawyer.