From a reader, this ruling on Ontario’s sex offender registry. Relevant section is at the bottom, which you might want to skip right along to, unless you have a law degree and a glutton for punishment. (I skimmed, but not so quickly as to have missed this sober passage; “…but the words of McKinlay J.A. in Cuddy Chicks [1989]”.)
On to the money quote.
[130] As noted previously, the objectives of Christopher’s Law are admirable but I find that in fostering these objectives Christopher’s Law is overbroad. The legislation incorporates means which limit and violate Mr. Dyck’s right to liberty and security for no reasons. The objective of Christopher’s Law could be accomplished without infringing on the life, liberty and security interests of Mr. Dyck or others in the manner it has which I find is arbitrary or disproportionate. The provisions of Christopher’s Law impair the rights of Mr. Dyck under section 7 more than is reasonably necessary in order to achieve its legislative objectives.
[131] I find, therefore, that Christopher’s Law violates Mr. Dyck’s rights under section 7 of the Charter and the legislation cannot be justified under section 1 of the Charter.
Mr. Dyck (his real name or fun lovin’ psuedonym ? … the mind boggles) is a convicted sex offender who objected to being added to the Ontario sex offender registry and his objections are upheld.
So there you have it. Law abiding Canadian citizens are mandated by federal law to register their firearms (or face criminal prosecution) ; mandated by federal law to register all purebred animals (under threat of a $50,000 fine); by provincial law, to register all motor vehicles and trailers. They must register their intent to serve alcohol at a public gathering. They must register their intent to hold a charity raffle. They must register their newborns and their dead.
But it’s unconstitutional to mandate the errant Dyck to register his errant dick.
its only to make him feel better simba.
Kate,
When will it end?
You might have skipped too much. It appears that the Federal government has a draft bill that is very similar to this law, which the judge in this case states “appears to ally the concerns raised by Mr. Dyck.” or words to that effect. In other words suggesting that a more carefully tailored law would allow for a sex offender registry.
There is no guarantee that the federal government will ever introduce a meaningful sex offender registry. They may elect, for instance, to require sex offenders to register only if they are convicted of a specified sexual offence after the new legislation comes into effect. That too can be justified by concerns about s. 11(h) or (i) of the Charter.
If they create a sex offender registry, can the feds be trusted to defend it vigorously against the inevitable Charter challenge? Martin may prefer to mount a token defence, let the courts strike down the legislation and abandon the idea. After all, recourse to the notwithstanding clause is unthinkable.
The point about Christopher’s Law is that the Ontario Provincial Parliament enacted a scheme of mandatory registration for sex offenders. Is it at all desirable — not to mention a wise use of lscarce court resources — to require that sex offenders have the opportunity to apply to the court for exemption from the registration requirement, or to limit their registration requirement to a shorter term?
Also, why no mention of this decision in the old media? I was able to find a reprinted article about Dyck from The Record (Kitchener-Waterloo) from soon after charges were laid, but nothing since.
“On to the money quote”
actually, the term is “money shot” know what it means?
Charles, I see your point and I had meant to mention it in my earlier comment. My response to that concern is that the judge in this case specifically found that the Province had the jurisdiction under the BNA Act ( sorry, I just can’t call it the Canada Act, 1867 or whatever the hell its now called) and as such there is nothing to stop the provincial government from passing a new version of Christopher’s Law that did not have the constitutional problems of the old one. IIRC the judge in this case specifically referred to a need for some judicial oversight to who would be covered by the reporting registration. This is not to say that if the province does pass such a law it would pass constitutional muster but it certainly appears to me that the judge in this case was giving a very broad hint to that effect.
Sorry Charles, I see that I did not actually address your point. (That’ll teach me to respond without actually reading the whole text.)
If I understood the court’s decision in this matter there was a concern that the registration requirement for sex offenders went beyond what is necessary for the protection of the public. I believe that one of the offences for which registration was required was incest, which, while not exactly something I want to think about, does not strike me as a crime for which a person must register with the police for the rest of their life for. As to your concern about whether court supervision is a wise use of court resources I believe that in this case we will disagree. I do not believe in limiting a persons access to court and if such a person can convice a judge that registration is not required in their particular circumstance I don’t have a problem with that.
Limiting the amount of time for registration is a tricky question. I think a properly worded statute could require permanant registration for the worst offenders while imposing a cut off date for less serious offenders. The problem with such a solution being, are there less serious sex offenders?
Anyway, just some thoughts I had on a drunken Friday night.
If you look at what the judge had to say it makes sense. All he is asking for is a review process to be included in the law. The federal legislation will provide for that.
Kate you are one hell of a demagogue. May you never touch our country’s levers of power.