Teacher pleads guilty to luring teenager online

Today’s Star reports of a teacher pleading guilty to luring a teenager online in Brampton.  What is unusual about the incident, and plea, is that according to the agreed statement of facts, the teacher did not initiate the contact, nor did she express any sort of romantic interest in the boy.  It appears from the article that the young man contacted her and spoke to her about recent problems he was having with his ex girlfriend. 

Her plea was in connection to a week of inappropriate communications with a 16-year-old male student, whose communications with her began because he was depressed over breaking up with his long-time girlfriend.

By the time Calautti was arrested on Nov. 13, 2007, the boy had romantic feelings for her, although there is no evidence she had any for him. "They never met outside school ... there was no sex," Crown prosecutor Aimee Gauthier told the court while reading an agreed statement of facts into the record. No evidence about the communications between teacher and student were filed. Although the teacher was 35, the victim thought she was 24, Gauthier said, adding Calautti never told him her age.

[…]

It was clear from facts supporting the charge read into court that the victim initiated the communications over an MSN chat line as a result of his emotional breakup with his girlfriend, and that he, and not her, had romantic feelings.

[…]

The basis for the charge that she pleaded guilty to stems from the fact that she knowingly communicated with a person under the age of 18, whom she was aware had romantic interest in her and never ceased communications.

It is needless to say that sexual conversations between adults and teenagers is not only inappropriate, but also criminal in most contexts. 

However, does this now mean that simply refusing to end such a conversation(s) of a person who insists on discussing these things engage criminal liability?  At least for Ms. Calautti, apparently so.  

I always understood the law to state that there has to be an act, and a mental element to the offence.  I do not understand from the article in the Star how either of these elements were present to luring a young person for a sexual purpose.  At the very least it is an important lesson to be learned for teachers (or any other professional) out there who have any type of communications with their students or young people outside of their professional capacity.

TheStar.com | GTA | Teacher pleads guilty to luring teenager online

New rules too harsh, young drivers say - Canada's Most Trusted Auto Resource

The McGuinty government in Ontario is now seeking to introduce new legislation that suspends and restricts young drivers who speed, as well as fundamentally undermines their driving privileges when they are with other teenagers.  The proposed legislation restricts, among other things, to deny drivers between 16 and 19 having more than one teenage passenger in the vehicle. 

This would apply to all people who fit in that category no matter how cautious of a driver they are.  It would effectively prevent several young people from going to the movies together, car pooling to work, going on a road trip, coming back from university or college together to see their families, being responsible designated drivers for parties, and the list goes on.  Of course, none of this applies, if all the teenagers take their own individual cars for such activities. 

We have HOV lanes up and down the DVP that are supposed to promote car pooling, contrasted with the image of four individual mini-vans teens borrowed from their mothers following each other up to Blue Mountain to ski.  Also, does this mean that a young mother cannot drive her children to the hospital, daycare, or school without someone over the age of 19 in the car?  I suppose time will tell in proving the ill-conceived purpose and effects of this legislation. 

Is it just me, or does it seem that the laws in Ontario are becoming more and more absurd as time goes on?  It seems every hair-brained idea is entertained and somehow enacted so our most basic, and even trivial of liberties, is restricted.  What makes this worse, is that it the majority of people this proposed law affects, are not able to vote for the government who has enacted them as they are too young.   Worse still, is that these rules are passed under regulatory provisions that do not need the approval of the Provincial Legislature, much like the new “speed racing” and “stunting” legislation.  In my view, this is another example of lazy and unaccountable government actions that bring me even further to never returning my vote to the provincial Liberals. 

We have a state of affairs where an entire Humvee full of teenagers can drive around in Afghanistan with the Canadian Army amongst road-side IEDs, yet those same teenagers on their return (if lucky) cannot go to the hockey rink together without breaking the law. 

As Winston Churchill stated: If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. 

Wheels.ca - New rules too harsh, young drivers say - Canada's Most Trusted Auto Resource

Youth convict heads to federal prison

The Star reports today of the first youth sentenced for murder as an adult under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.  The victim of the homicide was murdered by Justin Morton on the same day  legislation came into force on April 1, 2003.  The article can be found on the link below and the Act can be found here. 

Normally a youth’s name is not disclosed even after a conviction, but where the individual is sentenced as an adult, that prohibition is no longer applicable and the press may report on the identity of the convicted youth as was the case here.

TheStar.com | GTA | Youth convict heads to federal prison

Citing Workload, Public Lawyers Reject New Cases – New York Times

An interesting article by ERIK ECKHOLM on public defenders refusing to take cases because of their workload. 

MIAMI — Public defenders’ offices in at least seven states are refusing to take on new cases or have sued to limit them, citing overwhelming workloads that they say undermine the constitutional right to counsel for the poor.

Clayton Ruby Shifts the Focus of Delays on the Criminal Justice System

In today’s Globe and Mail, Clayton Ruby discusses our judicial system’s present problems with delay.  This is nothing new and recently we have seen a number of pronouncements, posturing, and even commissions on the issue. 

What is significant about this article is it raises the seemingly forgotten question: what happened to the right to a speedy trial?  The question is easily pushed aside as the typical approach by politicians is one of indifference towards the rights of accused individuals.  From a defence lawyer’s perspective, any recent initiatives towards cleaning up the justice system has little, if anything, to do with the protection of an accused’s right to a fair and speedy trial.  To the contrary, we see an erosion of rights that is sacrificed for expediency. 

Such erosion includes:

• Demands on defence counsel to make admissions, notwithstanding that these admissions are their client’s to make and not theirs;
• Pressure on counsel to reveal defences and strategies before trial thus providing prosecutors an incredible tactical advantage such as having police forces work to discredit them;
• Placing defence counsel in an impossible situation whereby they either reveal their defences (euphamised as “issues”) and give up the tactical advantage discussed, or be prevented by the Court from potentially arguing them at all at trial. 

This is just a small sample.  For a more in-depth review of what is now required, you can start by looking at the Superior Court of Justice Criminal Rules.  It is expected by many in the defence bar that the situation will only become worse as these fundamental issues are glossed over by more politically enticing issues such as victim’s rights, incarceration, and costs of the judicial system to “protect criminals”. 

As Ruby states,

“The right to a trial within a reasonable time is fundamental in Canada. It is protected in the Constitution. It is essential to the presumption of innocence. It should be inviolable - period. But it is not. Canadian appeal courts have simply failed us.”

As Ben Franklin once said, a society who sacrifices their liberty for some temporary security deserves neither. 

Police Taser Use and Abuse in Canada

I came across an interesting article on CBC News today on the disturbing trend and proliferation of taser deaths in Canada.  The link can be found here where it shows as of July 2008 there had been over 20 deaths at the hands of tasers. 

Deaths continue to mount and notwithstanding the troubling news, police and politicians alike, like Alberta’s Solcitor General, continue to defend their use.  Is is amazing that these deaths are tolerated as collateral damage to effective law enforcement.  The Solicitor General in this instance says that “until there is conclusive evidence that stun guns are dangerous, police will be able to use them.”  There is a latin phrase that lawyers use from time to time: Res ipsa loquitur.  Some things speak for themselves. 

I would have thought that 20 deaths would articulate the point quite well, but perhaps the politicians and police are waiting for people Robert Dziekański to speak from the grave that they do indeed kill people.

Two-year knife ban includes dining utensils, judge says

An interesting ruling last week prohibiting the accused from possessing knives while on probation, even while eating.  "He should be able to get along with a spoon and a fork" ruled Justice R.T. Weseloh.  Personally, 90% of my diet is either pizza or something eaten with chop-sticks; however, I could see how it might be a little much for some people to comply with. 

TheRecord.com - Local - Two-year knife ban includes dining utensils, judge says