Category Archives: Canada

Canada takes a further step to combat international human rights violations and corruption

The Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act

Overview

On October 4, 2017, the House of Commons has unanimously voted to pass Bill S-226, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (the “Act”),[1] that is commonly known as the Magnitsky law.[2]  The law is named after Sergey Magnitsky, a Moscow lawyer who uncovered a large tax fraud and was detained and died in a Moscow prison on November 16, 2009.  Bill S-226 received Royal Assent on October 18, 2017.

The Act imposes various sanctions, including freezing of assets and travel bans, on foreign nationals responsible for gross violation of internationally recognized human rights and significant corruption.  Among other things, the Act permits issuing orders against anyone in or outside Canada who are dealing, directly or indirectly, with the property or financial affairs of the foreign national that is the subject of an order or regulation under the Act.

On November 3, 2017, regulations under the Act were enforced combating the activities of 52 foreign nationals who are believed to have been engaged in gross human rights violations or significant corruption activities.  The majority of the named individuals are the nationals of the Russian Federation, in addition to the nationals of Venezuela and South Sudan.  The Russian government has not welcomed the law.  It retaliated with its own list banning the entry of various Canadians into Russia.  As part of the retaliatory measures, Russia’s officials stated that the government viewed the law as yet another attempt to exert pressure on Russia.

Continue reading »

Take Note: Facilitation Payments Are Now Illegal Under the CFPOA

city, downtown, high rise, buildingsOn October 31, 2017,  the Government of Canada eliminated the facilitation payment exception from the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (the “CFPOA”). The elimination of this exception was the final component of significant and high profile amendments to the CFPOA enacted over four years ago, which also:

  • Expanded the jurisdiction for corruption offences based on nationality.
  • Increased the maximum penalty for an individual convicted under the legislation to 14 years.
  • Created a books and records offence.
  • Provided the RCMP with exclusive authority to lay charges under the CFPOA.

The government delayed implementation of the provision of the 2013 amendments removing the facilitation payment exception from the CFPOA to provide companies with sufficient time to modify business practices and adapt their internal controls. Despite the length of notice, it is critical for companies conducting business abroad to be mindful of this major change to the legislation.

Continue reading »

Canadian DPA? Cross-country consultations begin

Government of Canada Launches Consultations

More than two years ago, in the context of its procurement modernization initiative designed to ensure that it was doing business with ethical suppliers, the Government of Canada introduced a government-wide “Integrity Regime”. The Government is now seeking to review whether its objectives have been achieved. On September 25, 2017, it launched a consultation to seek stakeholders’ views on its “Integrity Regime” and took the opportunity to seek the public’s opinion on a potential deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) regime as well. The Government has published a Discussion paper entitled “Expanding Canada’s Toolkit to Address Corporate Wrongdoing: the Deferred Prosecution Agreement Stream Discussion Guide in relation to the consultation process. Stakeholders may provide their responses and comments until November 17, 2017.

DPA Regime

A DPA regime is like a diversion program that provides an alternative to criminal proceedings. Instead of going to trial, the prosecutor can make an offer to the accused to hold off on criminal charges, while the person enters into a program designed to rehabilitate them. If the accused does not comply with the terms of the agreement, the prosecution is resumed. In Canada, diversion programs are currently made available to individuals only. A DPA regime is a diversion program made available to corporations. It is often – but not always – available only for specific offences related to economic crimes.

Continue reading »

Des APS canadiens? Les consultations débutent

Le gouvernement canadien lance des consultations

Il y a plus de deux ans, le gouvernement canadien présentait son nouveau « régime d’intégrité ». Par ce régime, le gouvernement cherche à s’assurer qu’il fait affaire avec des fournisseurs dont le comportement est conforme à l’éthique. Dans le but de déterminer s’il a atteint ses objectifs, le 25 septembre 2017, le gouvernement lançait une consultation afin de recueillir les vues du public et des divers acteurs du milieu concernant son « régime d’intégrité ». Il en profitait pour lancer en même temps une consultation sur la possibilité d’instaurer un régime juridique permettant de  conclure, au Canada, des accords de poursuite suspendue (APS). Le « Guide de discussions » intitulé « Élargir la trousse d’outils du Canada afin d’éliminer les actes répréhensibles des entreprises : Guide de discussion sur le volet des accords de poursuite suspendue » permet d’orienter le débat. Les personnes qui désirent fournir leurs commentaires dans le contexte de cette consultation peuvent le faire jusqu’au 17 novembre 2017.

Régime juridique permettant de conclure des APS

Les APS constituent en quelque sorte l’équivalent d’un programme de déjudiciarisation. Un programme de déjudiciarisation est un programme permettant aux individus d’éviter de faire l’objet de poursuites criminelles. Dans certaines circonstances, plutôt que d’intenter un procès, le poursuivant peut offrir à l’accusé de suspendre les accusations afin de lui permettre de suivre un programme de réhabilitation. Si l’accusé ne se soumet pas aux règles qu’on lui impose dans ce contexte, la poursuite criminelle est rétablie. Au Canada, de tels programmes de déjudiciarisation sont offerts aux individus seulement. Les APS sont l’équivalent d’un programme de déjudiciarisation, mais pour les entreprises. Les APS s’appliquent normalement seulement aux crimes de nature économique, bien que cela ne soit pas toujours le cas.

Continue reading »

Radiohead stage collapse victims let down by the justice system


On September 5, 2017, Justice Nelson of the Ontario Court of Justice stayed all quasi-criminal charges against the three corporate and one individual accused in the deadly stage collapse at the Radiohead concert in Downsview Park on June 16, 2012.  These charges under the Occupational Health & Safety Act (“OHSA”) are some of the latest in a series of serious regulatory and criminal charges, that have been stayed for unreasonable delay as a result of the Jordan decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Radiohead, a British rock band, was scheduled to perform at a concert in Toronto at Downsview Park.  Just hours before the start of the concert, the stage superstructure collapsed.  Scott Johnson, a drum technician, and resident of the United Kingdom,  was fatally injured.  Others were also seriously injured.

On June 6, 2013, the Government of Ontario’s Ministry of Labour laid charges against a number of parties under the OHSA, including but not limited to, Live Nation Canada Inc., Optex Staging & Services Inc., and the professional engineer who provided advice and engineering drawings and certification, Domenic Cugliari.

The case was factually and legally serious and complex.  It proceeded to trial in November 2015, before Justice Nakatsuru, of the Ontario Court of Justice.  Although during that trial, there had been an Application for Delay, after the Jordan decision was released by the Supreme Court of Canada on July 8, 2016, it was rejected by the trial judge.  The trial proceeded, the prosecution and defense evidence was completed, and the lawyers were in the process of making final, written submissions on the merits of the prosecution.

However, on April 12, 2017, before all the final arguments were made, Justice Nakatsuru was appointed to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, by the Federal Attorney General, Jody Wilson-Raybould.  As a result, and under instructions from the Department of Justice not to do any further work on any matter, including the completion of the Live Nation case, Justice Nakatsuru ruled that he had no jurisdiction to continue the trial, and declared a mis-trial.

The  policy and practice of the Department of Justice did not permit Justice Nakatsuru to complete the trial, after his appointment to the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario.  Justice Nelson, was appointed to be the second trial judge. On a pre-trial Charter delay motion, to stay the OHSA charges for a breach of s. 11(b) of the Charter, said the following at paragraph 70:

[70] Both Cugliari and Live Nation submit that Justice Nakatsuru’s appointment should not be treated as a discrete event because although unforeseen by the Crown in this case, it was not unforeseen by the state.  Further, the state failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate any delay that did ensue.  Specifically, counsel point to the following:

  • The Provincial government failed to pass legislation which would have permitted Justice Nakatsuru to complete the trial;
  • Justice Nakatsuru would have known that he was presiding over this trial when he applied to the Superior Court bench thus risking the mistrial;
  • Justice Nakatsuru could have deferred his appointment until after he completed this case;
  • The Federal government should have ensured that Justice Nakatsuru was not appointed until this trial was completed.[1]

Although the Crown prosecutor persuaded Justice Nelson that the judicial appointment was a discrete exceptional event, it still did not permit this type of overall delay that occurred in this case.  The trial justice held that even if one was to give thirty (30) months to complete this type of trial, rather than the presumptive eighteen (18) months, that the delay still far exceeded that period of time;  the case having been in the judicial system for almost five (5) years.

The charges were stayed for breach of the constitutional right, under the Charter, to a trial within a reasonable period of time under section 11(b).

[1]       Ibid., para. 70.