I am curious of the experiences/opinions of those who have had first hand or any other close encounters with the Crown as a plaintiff in Ontario.
In my two unique experiences, I have found a few things to appear true:
- the Crown sometimes forgets their duty to act in the public interest and can pursue a case where those involved on both sides do not personally want to pursue a legal dispute.
- the Crown does not act with enough discretion at times to throw out charges by the police which are flagrantly exaggerated and highly unlikely to succeed on their merits.
- the Crown does not lend enough nuance to their pursuits and needs to focus on diversifying away from a punishment-based system.
Of course these are from personal experiences so I would like to hear from others in Ontario to know what you think. All experiences, opinions, and discussions are welcome with the exception of clearly provocative and/or discriminatory demeanour.
Thanks!
the Crown sometimes forgets their duty to act in the public interest and can pursue a case where those involved on both sides do not personally want to pursue a legal dispute.
That is not even remotely what “public interest” means. A conflict between two drug dealers would almost certainly not have either side wanting to pursue a legal dispute, that doesn’t mean the Crown is not still obligated to pursue the case, as it is DEFINITELY in the public interest. This has nothing to do with whether the involved parties are interested in pursuing it, although it can in practice make it much more difficult. But this is actually about whether it serves the public interest to address the alleged crime. While you may argue that it does not in whatever case you are imagining, you very probably legally incorrect, and maybe a bit biased too.
The other two points I would generally agree on in many cases, but I would also point out that in just as many cases the complete opposite is true. The system is very imperfect, unfortunately and no obvious solution appears before me.
Good point and clarification. I’ll leave my error up there because hey maybe somebody else will learn too.
You’re right that I would argue for a specific case and I suppose that is what makes it a difficult measure to quantify.
And yes of course any opinion in this thread will inevitably have bias if they’re responding to my request for personal experiences, including my own. I’m not trying to avoid bias here but just gather what individuals are thinking. In my case, you’re right that my conflation of public interest is incorrect. Though I still believe in my experiences the system is very imperfect and overly rigid.
Thanks.
This is extremely common in domestic violence situations. Of course partners often don’t want to involve the law.
A less common place this comes up is regarding sexual consent, which Canadians cannot always legally give in every situation they might expect, leaving their partner in legal jeopardy. If you lose consciousness, any sexual consent you have given (even explicitly, “after I fall asleep”) is immediately voided. There have been several cases of happy, consensual partners who talked about playing while asleep and were investigated and prosecuted by the Crown.
Never seen the Crown investigate regulatory capture.
Please protect your personal information, people. For those curious what sparked the idea of posting this - it was Doug Ford’s proposal for live-streaming bail hearings, which gave me a push towards discussing things I’ve never really publicly discussed.
Edit: oh, and please make sure you are referencing Canadian law and experiences in Ontario. The legal system of other countries is not relevant here.
Said proposal is a simple attempt to appease the angry mob out for blood justice, and to cause undue stress and coerce the justice making any decisions to avoid having to deal with the likely threats and potential violence towards them and their families by said mob.