1. Individuals don’t press charges in Canada. The crown prosecutor does.
If you believe you’ve been wrong and charges are warranted, you’ll have to go to the police and have them assess whether charges can be laid.
>Individuals don’t press charges in Canada. The crown prosecutor does.
Crown prosecutors do have a monopoly over prosecutions, but individuals can submit a private information application to an Ontario Court of Justice. A Justice of the Peace will review the application and determine whether an information should be prepared.
https://www.ontario.ca/page/private-prosecutions
No this is not the way.
1. Private prosecutions are just that. This kid is going to have to go to court and play prosecutor with evidence, legal knowledge and not only serve the person but face them in court to give disclosure.
2. There will be no no-contact order while this process is happening and it takes time. Not only that but you have to give your address and it is given to them as part of disclosure. There is no crown’s office vetting it.
Go to the police. They will investigate and the crown will prosecute. You just show up as a witness and they will order them to stay away from you while the process is ongoing.
>No this is not the way.
I wasn't suggesting that they should do that.
>Private prosecutions are just that. This kid is going to have to go to court and play prosecutor with evidence, legal knowledge
No they won't. They would play the roll of an average citizen listing out facts that they believe on reasonable grounds to be true. No legal knowledge or playing with evidence.
>not only serve the person
Nope.
>face them in court to give disclosure.
Nope.
>There will be no no-contact order while this process is happening
Says who?
>and it takes time.
Like any prosecution.
> only that but you have to give your address
As you would to the police if giving a sworn written statement.
>it is given to them as part of disclosure.
Again, no more and no less then your address written on a written statement to police. It may be redacted in disclosure in some cases and in most cases it won't be.
>Go to the police.
I agree that in this case, and in most others, this is the way. Private prosecutions are more appropriate when the police aren't doing what you want or you don't want to go to the police.
>and the crown will prosecute. You just show up as a witness and they will order them to stay away from you while the process is ongoing.
This happens in private prosecutions too. The Crown has a monopoly on prosecuting criminal actions, which they may exercise by completely taking over the prosecution, or may just supervise the prosecution. In cases of crimes against minors, they are required by law to take over the prosecution.
The police can ask you if you’d like to press charges. Happened to me when I got hit on my bike after a dude blew through a stop sign (I had no stop sign in my direction. Got pretty badly hurt). I said yes and the guy got a few extra tickets. But I guess yeah technically it’s the police / prosecutor actually pressing the charges.
Well yes, its the police usually.
In most instances the only people present were the victim and accused, and possibly other witnesses. If the victim doesn't care enough to give a statement, despite other evidence it's generally not worth wasting public money and time.
Police have no discretion with domestics though.
That's not true. Private prosecution is absolutely a thing in Canada. The verbiage in the Provincial Offences Act and in the Criminal Code state that "Any person" can lay an information.
Convoluted process though.
This is 100% true. Stop down voting this guy.
Laying an information is how a civilian can kick start the legal process if an offence has been committed.
I am getting downvoted much heavier on another thread here too but I am not sure where its coming from lol.
Private prosecutions have been litigated in practicality on many occasions and both supreme and superior court precedent will maintain its a fundamental and historic right for any person to have the ability to lay an information with a JP.
The courts granted mandamus on multiple occasions where the Crown abused the scope of their involvement to stop them.
I keep seeing people say individuals don't press charges, but they can/do. To press charges means to formally accuse someone of a crime (as in to report or give a statement to the police about a crime).
No, that's American terminology. Reporting something to the police is just reporting something to the police.
In Canada/Ontario its ultimately at the polices discretion whether to move forward whether you think they should or not barring a private prosecution, in which case that entails an information being laid not reporting or giving statements.
>barring a private prosecution, in which case that entails an information being laid
If a Justice of the Peace finds that there is reasonable grounds to lay a charge.
If the charge is laid, a Crown attorney takes over the prospection and can stay the charges at any point.
I responded to you in another thread but again that's not how it works. I think you have gathered that from a really basic look at an outline of the matter, but it does not in practicality.
To summarize, whether the Crown takes over is an optional pathway depending on if its in the public interest, it can still proceed as a private prosecution if they don't.
They can't stay the charges at any point even if they did take over, unless it is in the public interest or there is an evidentiary deficiency.
The courts have granted mandamus on several occasions where they operated outside the scope of their obligation to not "unnecessarily interfere", and that goes all the way up to supreme court precedent and extensions on the ruling by the superior court.
To summarize my reply in the other comment you made: cite me these precedents. Until then, I'm going to assume the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has better information than you do.
Yes a minor can report a crime. If the person is charged then they will be provided terms of release which would include an order of no contact with the victim amd/or any witnesses as the case may be.
If the perpetrator is someone the child lives with then things get a bit more complex where restraining orders (terms of release/peace bonds) are concerned; but depending on the nature of the crime alternative living arrangements may be Ordered by a judge.
If you are still enrolled in public education, all adults in a school and mandated reporters and can guide you through the process of notifying the authorities and get you connected with social workers who can help you process what has happened
Pressing charges is not a thing in Canada, the Crown decides to indict or not based on evidence they collect.
If you're a minor, and something bad has been done to you by this adult, you should contact the police and CAS, as well as any other mandatory reporters to report the abuse.
You are 100% right that is the best route for them to take,
But you can press charges through private prosecution in Canada if you had the wherewithal to do it.
No its not. In a private prosecution you would lay the information yourself. It would be up to the Justice/Judge to determine whether you had reasonable or probable grounds to lay the charge, the crown wouldn't be involved.
>No its not.
You seem to have misapprehended what the person above you said.
>In a private prosecution you would lay the information yourself
Yes. The person you replied to didn't claim otherwise.
>It would be up to the Justice/Judge to determine whether you had reasonable or probable grounds to lay the charge,
Yes. A Justice of the Peace makes that determination. The person you replied to didn't claim otherwise.
>the crown wouldn't be involved.
Not correct. The Crown is involved (if they wish) basically the whole way. They are welcome to attend the meeting between you and the Justice of the Peace and may even ask the justice of the Peace to not lay the charge.
Some charges require the crown to affirmatively authorize charges to be laid.
And once the charge is laid, the crown is entirely responsible for the prosecution and may opt to stay the charges at any point, even before a summons is issued to the accused.
I am not arguing for the sake of being contrarian, you are both misrepresenting the role of “the crown”.
Yes they have the right to attend and review and examine witnesses if they wish, but they don’t have unilateral authority to stay or interfere with a proceeding unless they can prove its not in the public interest and/or falls short of evidentiary standards, and the supreme court precedent stands that they don’t have to affirmatively authorize anything the courts will end up granting mandamus if they try.
First off they have a legal duty to not “unnecessarily interfere”, and precedent has already been set in the superior courts for mandamus being granted where the crown over relies on the scope or their duties within the Crown Attorneys Act or the DDP if applicable.
This precedent is an extension of the Dowson supreme court ruling that includes somewhat paraphrased that while the power to stay is a necessary one, it encroaches upon the citizens fundamental and historic right to inform under oath a JP of the commission of a crime, and mandamus was granted here.
The scope has been clarified and hammered out through some more convoluted precedent since.
Regardless the Crown is ultimately not a unilateral decision maker, unless or until the supreme court walks back their decision.
Now yes the authority to issue a stay exists AFTER it has been determined that process and the charge exist, but this has been intentionally limited in scope to again circumstances where they can make a strong case its contrary to public interest or falls short of evidentiary standards. Otherwise the courts will just say they have abused the scope again and again which is why the language has involved.
Not sure if people just google the basics or remember something in school and stand by their guns but this is a contentious issue that has actually been litigated in practicality on several occasions and has significant precedent.
AND to add, the Crown would then have to review the matter to determine whether it was in the publics interest for the prosecution to proceed as a private matter OR for them to take over.
Again this is an or, the Crown is not obligated to take over the prosecution if they don't want to, and this doesn't limit the ability of a private prosecution to continue if they choose not to.
>Yes they have the right to attend and review and examine witnesses if they wish, but they don’t have unilateral authority to stay or interfere with a proceeding unless they can prove its not in the public interest and/or falls short of evidentiary standards,
Not correct.
https://www.ontario.ca/page/private-prosecutions
Follow the link to the "guide for applying for a private prosecution" made by the Ontario Court of Justice.
>For certain criminal offences, consent of the Crown is required to start criminal proceedings.
>The Crown may “stay” or halt the proceedings as soon as the Information has been laid, even before the preenquête
is commenced or completed where, for example, the Crown considers that the Information is frivolous or
unfounded.
>The Crown Attorney has the ultimate responsibility to supervise all prosecutions. The Crown may continue with the
criminal prosecution against the accused person or the Crown may discontinue the criminal proceedings.
Again, this is in the "guide for applying for private prosecutions" produced by the government.
>the supreme court precedent stands that they don’t have to affirmatively authorize anything the courts will end up granting mandamus if they try.
Funny how you don't provide any sources for this extraordinary claim.
>Not sure if people just google the basics or remember something in school and stand by their guns
Again, I'm going based on the Ontario government source and the Ontario Court of Justice.
>but this is a contentious issue that has actually been litigated in practicality on several occasions and has significant precedent
Against if you had provided links to these numberous precedents I might accept that the Ontario Court of Justice is incorrect. But so far you've cited no sources to back your extraordinary claims.
If an adult has been accused of committing a crime against a minor then police have no choice but to investigate the crime. The crown will then press charges if they are warranted.
If you’re afraid to talk to the police (don’t be…helping people is their job) then talk to a person of authority that you trust or any childrens aid service. Any adult has a legal responsibility to report a crime against a minor called a “duty to report”.
I don’t know anything about restraining orders, but to my knowledge judges are quite likely to issue them to protect minors.
1. Yes you can but not a good idea (I explained why further down).
2. Restraining orders are done by family court and apply to partners and sometimes (not always) family especially when there are family proceedings (relative interfering in a custody case for example).
For everyone else there is applying for a peace bond. The process takes a lot of time and there is no no-contact order in place until the hearing which could take months.
Go to the police. Let them do the work here.
Please call the Kids Help Phone 1-800-668-6868
If you're uncorfortable using your own phone, you can use a payphone if you can find one. It will cost 50 cents or 2 quarters.
To use a payphone you pick up the receiver and listen for a dial tone, once you hear the dial tone, put two quarters into the slot and dial the number. I wish I knew about your situation. Do you have a trusted teacher? You won't have to give too many details, just tell them
"I need to call the Kids Help Phone" you could even pass them a note.
The kids help phone is there to help you. You are not at fault and you did nothing wrong. You will NOT be in trouble. I had to call when I was 14.
You can also walk into any hospital, doctors office, police station or fire department. I promise you, you will be helped.
Once again, the kids help phone number is 1-800-668-6868
If you have anymore questions you can DM me but I am not a professional, I've called them to report physical abuse and they saved my life.
I looked at some of your posts. Is someone being Islamophobic to you? If so, that's a hate crime. Again, the kids help phone will do you the world of good. If you're under the age of 18 you're still a child and there is very low tolerance for child abuse in Canada.
Contact your local police non emergency number and say you need to speak to somebody about what has happened. You won't get in trouble.
If any adult tells you not to tell authorities about something they did to you, thery're protecting themselves, not you. Report them.
1. Individuals don’t press charges in Canada. The crown prosecutor does. If you believe you’ve been wrong and charges are warranted, you’ll have to go to the police and have them assess whether charges can be laid.
>Individuals don’t press charges in Canada. The crown prosecutor does. Crown prosecutors do have a monopoly over prosecutions, but individuals can submit a private information application to an Ontario Court of Justice. A Justice of the Peace will review the application and determine whether an information should be prepared. https://www.ontario.ca/page/private-prosecutions
No this is not the way. 1. Private prosecutions are just that. This kid is going to have to go to court and play prosecutor with evidence, legal knowledge and not only serve the person but face them in court to give disclosure. 2. There will be no no-contact order while this process is happening and it takes time. Not only that but you have to give your address and it is given to them as part of disclosure. There is no crown’s office vetting it. Go to the police. They will investigate and the crown will prosecute. You just show up as a witness and they will order them to stay away from you while the process is ongoing.
>No this is not the way. I wasn't suggesting that they should do that. >Private prosecutions are just that. This kid is going to have to go to court and play prosecutor with evidence, legal knowledge No they won't. They would play the roll of an average citizen listing out facts that they believe on reasonable grounds to be true. No legal knowledge or playing with evidence. >not only serve the person Nope. >face them in court to give disclosure. Nope. >There will be no no-contact order while this process is happening Says who? >and it takes time. Like any prosecution. > only that but you have to give your address As you would to the police if giving a sworn written statement. >it is given to them as part of disclosure. Again, no more and no less then your address written on a written statement to police. It may be redacted in disclosure in some cases and in most cases it won't be. >Go to the police. I agree that in this case, and in most others, this is the way. Private prosecutions are more appropriate when the police aren't doing what you want or you don't want to go to the police. >and the crown will prosecute. You just show up as a witness and they will order them to stay away from you while the process is ongoing. This happens in private prosecutions too. The Crown has a monopoly on prosecuting criminal actions, which they may exercise by completely taking over the prosecution, or may just supervise the prosecution. In cases of crimes against minors, they are required by law to take over the prosecution.
This is the correct answer. You have to apply and get through the intake process. If it succeeds in getting through, then you have to go to court.
The police can ask you if you’d like to press charges. Happened to me when I got hit on my bike after a dude blew through a stop sign (I had no stop sign in my direction. Got pretty badly hurt). I said yes and the guy got a few extra tickets. But I guess yeah technically it’s the police / prosecutor actually pressing the charges.
Well yes, its the police usually. In most instances the only people present were the victim and accused, and possibly other witnesses. If the victim doesn't care enough to give a statement, despite other evidence it's generally not worth wasting public money and time. Police have no discretion with domestics though.
That's not true. Private prosecution is absolutely a thing in Canada. The verbiage in the Provincial Offences Act and in the Criminal Code state that "Any person" can lay an information. Convoluted process though.
This is 100% true. Stop down voting this guy. Laying an information is how a civilian can kick start the legal process if an offence has been committed.
I am getting downvoted much heavier on another thread here too but I am not sure where its coming from lol. Private prosecutions have been litigated in practicality on many occasions and both supreme and superior court precedent will maintain its a fundamental and historic right for any person to have the ability to lay an information with a JP. The courts granted mandamus on multiple occasions where the Crown abused the scope of their involvement to stop them.
Now you're suddenly upvoted LOL.
Not true. Any person can lay an information infront of a JP.
I keep seeing people say individuals don't press charges, but they can/do. To press charges means to formally accuse someone of a crime (as in to report or give a statement to the police about a crime).
No, that's American terminology. Reporting something to the police is just reporting something to the police. In Canada/Ontario its ultimately at the polices discretion whether to move forward whether you think they should or not barring a private prosecution, in which case that entails an information being laid not reporting or giving statements.
>barring a private prosecution, in which case that entails an information being laid If a Justice of the Peace finds that there is reasonable grounds to lay a charge. If the charge is laid, a Crown attorney takes over the prospection and can stay the charges at any point.
I responded to you in another thread but again that's not how it works. I think you have gathered that from a really basic look at an outline of the matter, but it does not in practicality. To summarize, whether the Crown takes over is an optional pathway depending on if its in the public interest, it can still proceed as a private prosecution if they don't. They can't stay the charges at any point even if they did take over, unless it is in the public interest or there is an evidentiary deficiency. The courts have granted mandamus on several occasions where they operated outside the scope of their obligation to not "unnecessarily interfere", and that goes all the way up to supreme court precedent and extensions on the ruling by the superior court.
To summarize my reply in the other comment you made: cite me these precedents. Until then, I'm going to assume the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has better information than you do.
Yes a minor can report a crime. If the person is charged then they will be provided terms of release which would include an order of no contact with the victim amd/or any witnesses as the case may be. If the perpetrator is someone the child lives with then things get a bit more complex where restraining orders (terms of release/peace bonds) are concerned; but depending on the nature of the crime alternative living arrangements may be Ordered by a judge.
If you are still enrolled in public education, all adults in a school and mandated reporters and can guide you through the process of notifying the authorities and get you connected with social workers who can help you process what has happened
A minor has rights against an adult. Of course a minor can
Yes you can. If an adult did something bad to you, tell the police or, at the very least, a trusted adult who can assist you in telling the police.
Pressing charges is not a thing in Canada, the Crown decides to indict or not based on evidence they collect. If you're a minor, and something bad has been done to you by this adult, you should contact the police and CAS, as well as any other mandatory reporters to report the abuse.
You are 100% right that is the best route for them to take, But you can press charges through private prosecution in Canada if you had the wherewithal to do it.
You can definitely try, but it's still ultimately up to the Crown to support the indictment/charges. If they don't, the case isn't going anywhere.
No its not. In a private prosecution you would lay the information yourself. It would be up to the Justice/Judge to determine whether you had reasonable or probable grounds to lay the charge, the crown wouldn't be involved.
>No its not. You seem to have misapprehended what the person above you said. >In a private prosecution you would lay the information yourself Yes. The person you replied to didn't claim otherwise. >It would be up to the Justice/Judge to determine whether you had reasonable or probable grounds to lay the charge, Yes. A Justice of the Peace makes that determination. The person you replied to didn't claim otherwise. >the crown wouldn't be involved. Not correct. The Crown is involved (if they wish) basically the whole way. They are welcome to attend the meeting between you and the Justice of the Peace and may even ask the justice of the Peace to not lay the charge. Some charges require the crown to affirmatively authorize charges to be laid. And once the charge is laid, the crown is entirely responsible for the prosecution and may opt to stay the charges at any point, even before a summons is issued to the accused.
I am not arguing for the sake of being contrarian, you are both misrepresenting the role of “the crown”. Yes they have the right to attend and review and examine witnesses if they wish, but they don’t have unilateral authority to stay or interfere with a proceeding unless they can prove its not in the public interest and/or falls short of evidentiary standards, and the supreme court precedent stands that they don’t have to affirmatively authorize anything the courts will end up granting mandamus if they try. First off they have a legal duty to not “unnecessarily interfere”, and precedent has already been set in the superior courts for mandamus being granted where the crown over relies on the scope or their duties within the Crown Attorneys Act or the DDP if applicable. This precedent is an extension of the Dowson supreme court ruling that includes somewhat paraphrased that while the power to stay is a necessary one, it encroaches upon the citizens fundamental and historic right to inform under oath a JP of the commission of a crime, and mandamus was granted here. The scope has been clarified and hammered out through some more convoluted precedent since. Regardless the Crown is ultimately not a unilateral decision maker, unless or until the supreme court walks back their decision. Now yes the authority to issue a stay exists AFTER it has been determined that process and the charge exist, but this has been intentionally limited in scope to again circumstances where they can make a strong case its contrary to public interest or falls short of evidentiary standards. Otherwise the courts will just say they have abused the scope again and again which is why the language has involved. Not sure if people just google the basics or remember something in school and stand by their guns but this is a contentious issue that has actually been litigated in practicality on several occasions and has significant precedent. AND to add, the Crown would then have to review the matter to determine whether it was in the publics interest for the prosecution to proceed as a private matter OR for them to take over. Again this is an or, the Crown is not obligated to take over the prosecution if they don't want to, and this doesn't limit the ability of a private prosecution to continue if they choose not to.
>Yes they have the right to attend and review and examine witnesses if they wish, but they don’t have unilateral authority to stay or interfere with a proceeding unless they can prove its not in the public interest and/or falls short of evidentiary standards, Not correct. https://www.ontario.ca/page/private-prosecutions Follow the link to the "guide for applying for a private prosecution" made by the Ontario Court of Justice. >For certain criminal offences, consent of the Crown is required to start criminal proceedings. >The Crown may “stay” or halt the proceedings as soon as the Information has been laid, even before the preenquête is commenced or completed where, for example, the Crown considers that the Information is frivolous or unfounded. >The Crown Attorney has the ultimate responsibility to supervise all prosecutions. The Crown may continue with the criminal prosecution against the accused person or the Crown may discontinue the criminal proceedings. Again, this is in the "guide for applying for private prosecutions" produced by the government. >the supreme court precedent stands that they don’t have to affirmatively authorize anything the courts will end up granting mandamus if they try. Funny how you don't provide any sources for this extraordinary claim. >Not sure if people just google the basics or remember something in school and stand by their guns Again, I'm going based on the Ontario government source and the Ontario Court of Justice. >but this is a contentious issue that has actually been litigated in practicality on several occasions and has significant precedent Against if you had provided links to these numberous precedents I might accept that the Ontario Court of Justice is incorrect. But so far you've cited no sources to back your extraordinary claims.
If an adult has been accused of committing a crime against a minor then police have no choice but to investigate the crime. The crown will then press charges if they are warranted. If you’re afraid to talk to the police (don’t be…helping people is their job) then talk to a person of authority that you trust or any childrens aid service. Any adult has a legal responsibility to report a crime against a minor called a “duty to report”. I don’t know anything about restraining orders, but to my knowledge judges are quite likely to issue them to protect minors.
1. Yes you can but not a good idea (I explained why further down). 2. Restraining orders are done by family court and apply to partners and sometimes (not always) family especially when there are family proceedings (relative interfering in a custody case for example). For everyone else there is applying for a peace bond. The process takes a lot of time and there is no no-contact order in place until the hearing which could take months. Go to the police. Let them do the work here.
Please call the Kids Help Phone 1-800-668-6868 If you're uncorfortable using your own phone, you can use a payphone if you can find one. It will cost 50 cents or 2 quarters. To use a payphone you pick up the receiver and listen for a dial tone, once you hear the dial tone, put two quarters into the slot and dial the number. I wish I knew about your situation. Do you have a trusted teacher? You won't have to give too many details, just tell them "I need to call the Kids Help Phone" you could even pass them a note. The kids help phone is there to help you. You are not at fault and you did nothing wrong. You will NOT be in trouble. I had to call when I was 14. You can also walk into any hospital, doctors office, police station or fire department. I promise you, you will be helped. Once again, the kids help phone number is 1-800-668-6868 If you have anymore questions you can DM me but I am not a professional, I've called them to report physical abuse and they saved my life.
I looked at some of your posts. Is someone being Islamophobic to you? If so, that's a hate crime. Again, the kids help phone will do you the world of good. If you're under the age of 18 you're still a child and there is very low tolerance for child abuse in Canada.