Just doing my job.

ummmm..... Good try but pleading the fifth is not an option in Canada... pleading insanity is your only out Al. :rofl:

1565628234783.png
 
Insanity is a given. However, Section 13 of the Charter, along with Section 11(c) specifies rights regarding self-incrimination. I would direct the CCF judiciary body to review R v Nedelcu (2012) 3 SCR 311 and R v Henry (2005) 3 SCR 609 prior to ruling on my claim of self-incrimination.

:gents2:
 
Cariboocreek said:
Insanity is a given. However, Section 13 of the Charter, along with Section 11(c) specifies rights regarding self-incrimination. I would direct the CCF judiciary body to review R v Nedelcu (2012) 3 SCR 311 and R v Henry (2005) 3 SCR 609 prior to ruling on my claim of self-incrimination.

:gents2:
Click to expand...

Nice try Al but Sections 13 and 11 do not allow you to with-hold information. You can be compelled to answer but the Charter guarantees that the information released cannot be used against you in any future claims. ........the Crown can compel the witness to answer incriminating questions, but in exchange, they cannot use that evidence to incriminate the witness in subsequent proceedings (R v Nedelcu, 2012 SCC 59, at para 79 [Nedelcu])

.....Now... on the flip side, if you volunteer that information freely, Sections 13 and 11 do not apply and that material can be used against you... So my advice would be to follow the lead of your ancestors...

There is a fourth monkey but as a mod, I can't post it here.... lol....
1565629891018.png
 
Rruuff Day said:
Nice try Al but Sections 13 and 11 do not allow you to with-hold information. You can be compelled to answer but the Charter guarantees that the information released cannot be used against you in any future claims. ........the Crown can compel the witness to answer incriminating questions, but in exchange, they cannot use that evidence to incriminate the witness in subsequent proceedings (R v Nedelcu, 2012 SCC 59, at para 79 [Nedelcu])

.....Now... on the flip side, if you volunteer that information freely, Sections 13 and 11 do not apply and that material can be used against you... So my advice would be to follow the lead of your ancestors...

There is a fourth monkey but as a mod, I can't post it here.... lol....
View attachment 30247
Click to expand...
However, R v Henry was clear in its ruling that the purpose of s.13 was to "protect individuals from being compelled to incriminate themselves" (para 22), in tandem with Section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act. It essentially sets up a "quid pro quo" whereby a witness can be compelled to testify against themselves but that testimony cannot be used against them. I would direct you to Justice Binnie J who wrote the majority decision for the Court in R v Henry. As I cannot be guaranteed in this proceeding that the testimony given would not be used against myself, I find that I must assert my Charter Right as given in Section 13. Pursuant to that finding, even should R v Nedelcu be found precedent, and as I cannot be guaranteed that this testimony would not be used against me in future CCF proceedings, then Section 13 and 11(c) of the Charter would prevail and that both
R v Henry and R v Nedelcu would be deemed precedent.

Insert microphone drop here......
 
Cariboocreek said:
However, R v Henry was clear in its ruling that the purpose of s.13 was to "protect individuals from being compelled to incriminate themselves" (para 22), in tandem with Section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act. It essentially sets up a "quid pro quo" whereby a witness can be compelled to testify against themselves but that testimony cannot be used against them. I would direct you to Justice Binnie J who wrote the majority decision for the Court in R v Henry. As I cannot be guaranteed in this proceeding that the testimony given would not be used against myself, I find that I must assert my Charter Right as given in Section 13. Pursuant to that finding, even should R v Nedelcu be found precedent, and as I cannot be guaranteed that this testimony would not be used against me in future CCF proceedings, then Section 13 and 11(c) of the Charter would prevail and that both
R v Henry and R v Nedelcu would be deemed precedent.

Insert microphone drop here......
Click to expand...

Fair enough... I conceed because I'm way too busy at work to keep reseaching legal precedents... Oh wait.... I'm not at work... 🤣
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top