Parole Hearings

Parole Hearings

Parole Eligibility

Inmates who have been convicted of a crime and are serving a prison sentence are eligible for parole once they have served one-third of their sentence. They are eligible for statutory release after they have served two-thirds of the sentence. Any time that inmates have spent in pre-sentence custody will be credited to them, and the one-third and two-thirds proportions will be based on the difference between the length of their sentence and the length of time they spent in pre-sentence custody. An inmate sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment but who spent 1 year in pre-sentence custody will be eligible for parole after 1/3 of 6 years, or 2 years, and eligible for statutory release after 2/3 of 6 years, or 4 years.

The exception to this is when offenders are convicted of first- or second-degree murder. Offenders convicted of first-degree murder need to serve at least 25 years of their sentence before they are eligible for parole. Those convicted of second-degree murders are eligible once they have served between 10 years and 25 years. Those who receive a life sentence without a minimum period of ineligibility have the right to a parole hearing after 7 years of their sentence.

Some offenders are eligible for other types of release at various stages of their sentence. These include Day Parole, work release, Unescorted Temporary Absences (UTA), and in exceptional cases, Parole-by-Exception.

Parole Board of Canada Hearings

Unlike criminal proceedings, parole hearings do not take place before a judge in a court. Instead, they proceed before a tribunal composed of Parole Board members, and typically take place at the institution where the inmate is serving his or her sentence.

At the hearing, the Board members assess the risk the offender may pose to the public if the Board grants him or her conditional release. The Board members consider whether the risk the offender may present to society if released can be managed in the community. The protection of society is the Board’s overriding consideration in any release decision.

During the hearing, the Board carries out thorough questioning of the offence. Any victims can make victim impact statements. The offender’s lawyer and the parole officer may also make submissions to the Board.

We Represent Individuals in Provincial and Federal Institutions

We conduct parole hearings for offenders convicted of all criminal offences, serving sentences at Provincial and Federal Institutions. We have been successful at securing parole and defending alleged breaches of parole for our clients and ensuring their return into the community. We act for inmates and parolees across BC and Canada who need assistance during their parole hearings. We work with each offender to develop practical and effective release plans, and ensure that they are prepared for the questions of the Board members at their parole hearing. We also provide consultation services to assist those navigating other challenges of the prison system and prison life.

Overview of Fishing Offences and Penalties in BC

Fishing in Canada is regulated by laws designed to protect fish species and natural resources. In British Columbia, people who fish recreationally and commercially are required to hold a valid license for their fishing activities. These licenses are often subject to conditions and restrictions based on species, quantity, times, and designated areas. Violating these conditions by fishing without proper authorization or outside permissible areas or seasons can lead to severe legal consequences.

Common Fishing Offences

Below is a list of the most common types of fishing offences:

1. License Violations

        1. fishing without a valid license;
        2. fishing in violation of license conditions;
        3. failing to carry and produce a valid license;
        4. operating a vessel without properly painted or affixed registration numbers; and
        5. fishing under the authority of a communal license without being a designated person.

        2. Quota Violations

        1. exceeding catch limits or quotas;
        2. possessing fish caught in contravention of regulations; and
        3. possessing fish whose weight or number cannot be readily determined.

        3. Fishing in Prohibited Areas or Times

        1. fishing in prohibited areas; and
        2. fishing in closed waters or during closed seasons.

        4. Gear Violations

        1. using prohibited fishing gear; and
        2. operating improperly marked gear.

        5. Illegal sales and purchases

        1. buying, selling, trading or bartering seafood caught in fishery where sales are not authorized

        6. Habitat Damage

        1. damaging fish habitat through illegal fishing practices

        Penalties for Unauthorized Fishing

        Penalties for unauthorized fishing vary based on the nature and severity of the offense. Some common penalties include:

        1. Monetary Fines. Fines can be substantial, depending on the type of catch and the extent of the violation. Fines for ticketed violations are up to $1,000, while court-imposed fines after conviction can range from $5,000 to $300,000 for a first offence and $10,000 to $600,000 for subsequent offence. Fines for serious offences range from $15,000 to $1,000,000 for a first offence, and $30,000 to $2,000,000 for subsequent offences. Post-conviction fines for serious offences by corporations are even higher, ranging from $500,000 to $6,000,000 for first offences, and $1,000,000 to $12,000,000 for subsequent offences.

              2. Suspension or cancellation of licences. Suspensions and cancellations can be temporary, for a period determined by the court, or permanent.

              3. Prohibitions. The court can prohibit individuals from engaging in fishing activities or from applying for new licenses for a specified period.

                4. Seizure. Courts can order forfeiture of fish, proceeds from the sale of fish, fishing gear and vessels or other equipment used in the commission of an offence.

                  5. Imprisonment. In serious cases, such as fishing endangered species or repeated violations, offenders can face a term of imprisonment in addition to the above penalties.4

                  Legal Services for People Accused of Fishing Violations

                  If you, your company or your organization has been impacted by fisheries charges or the effects of unauthorized fishing, we can help. To assist our clients, we:

                  • provide detailed and comprehensive legal advice to help you understand your rights, assess the charges, and prepare your defence;
                  • gather and examine evidence and documentation produced by fisheries offers and prosecutors to identify weaknesses or inaccuracies in the case
                  • help you pursue compensation for damages if violations of fisheries laws resulted in damage to your property or natural resources
                  • work to reduce the severity of penalties based on the circumstances and specifics of the offense.

                  Contact us today to receive expert advice and secure legal representation.

                  Missing Banknotes

                  When a lawsuit was filed against a Canadian airline, my task was to determine defences.  The facts started with a Canadian bank sending Bank of Greece bank notes by air in a package from Vancouver to the Bank of Greece in Athens.  The package did not arrive.  The loss of the banknotes was unexplained. 

                  The Bank of Greece claimed against the airline.  The insurers for the airline honoured the insurance policy and paid for the lost money to the Bank of Greece.

                  Sometime later, some former employees of the airline in Montreal were found to have been buying chalets and snowmobiles.  The RCMP investigated.  They found that the package of money had been taken off the aircraft in Montreal.  There was a criminal prosecution and some of the money was recovered. 

                  The RCMP sent the recovered money to the Bank of Greece.  The Bank of Greece did not know what to do with it.  The bank had already been reimbursed for the loss.  It sent the money to the insurers.  When the insurers found out about the theft of the money, they claimed against the airline.  They said that they should not have paid the airline for the loss.  Theft was a loss outside the protection of the insurance policy.  It was gross misconduct.  The insurers commenced a lawsuit in British Columbia Supreme Court to recover the money from the airline. 

                  With defences developed and filed in Supreme Court, negotiation eventually settled the case.   

                  An Accused’s Right to a Timely Trial: Unreasonable Delay in Criminal Proceedings

                  Delay negatively affects the accused and the justice system

                  Unreasonable delay in criminal proceedings can have significant negative consequences for accused persons and our justice system. Excessive delays can hinder the accused’s ability to prepare a strong defence. Witnesses may become unavailable and their memories of key events may fade. Evidence may go missing or become compromised. Furthermore, the uncertainty associated with prolonged legal proceedings can lead to anxiety and depression for the accused, and impair the accused’s ability to function in daily life.

                  Delays also add to the court’s backlog of cases, reducing the court’s efficiency, and putting pressure on judges, prosecutors and the accused to rush decisions and proceed without adequate preparation. These factors undermine the aims of the justice system, which can erode public trust and confidence in the system.

                  How courts determine when delay is unreasonable

                  Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that everyone has the right to be tried within a reasonable time. In 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada made a decision in the case of R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 that describes a framework for determining when delay is unreasonable. The Court ruled that if the trial is held in provincial court (in BC, the Provincial Court of BC) the trial must be completed within 18 months (1.5 years) of the Crown laying the criminal charge. If the trial is held in superior court (Supreme Court of BC), the trial must be completed within 30 months (2. 5 years) of the Crown laying the charge. If a delay exceeds these time limits, the court will presume that the delay is unreasonable, unless the prosecution (the Crown) can demonstrate to the court that there are exceptional circumstances that justify the delay and that rebut the presumption that the delay is unreasonable.

                  If the court finds the delay unreasonable, and the Crown does not justify the delay, the court will   direct a judicial stay of proceedings, and the defendant will no longer face prosecution for the charges.

                  If the accused or the accused’s lawyer caused a delay (“defence delay”), the court will subtract the duration of the defence delay from the total period of the delay in question. Also, if exceptional circumstances, such as discrete events lying outside of the Crown’s control or the particular complexity of the case, are responsible for delay, the court will also subtract the amount of delay attributable to these circumstances from the total period of delay.

                  A case can qualify as “particularly complex” if, because of the nature of the evidence or the nature of the issues, it requires an unusually large amount of trial preparation time such that the delay is justified.  Courts will look at the number of accused, the number of witnesses, the complexity of the legal issues and the volume of disclosure as indicia of complexity. 

                  If the Crown wants to claim that delay is justified by a case’s complexity, it must show that the complexity is rationally connected to the delay that arose in bringing the matter to trial.  For instance, the Crown could not cite the fact that a case involves a large number of witnesses to justify a delay when that delay arose because of extremely late disclosure of evidence to the defence.

                  If a case is found to be “particularly complex”, the Crown must then establish that they developed and followed a concrete plan to minimize the delay occasioned by the complexity in the case. 

                  Remedy for unreasonable delay

                  In Canada, if there is an unreasonable delay between the time charges are laid against an accused and the end of a trial on the charges, the delay can result in the court granting a stay of proceedings, which is a suspension of the charges against the accused. This often leads to the permanent expungement of the charges against the accused.

                  A stay does not mean that the accused is innocent. But it means that the Crown failed to bring its case against the accused within a reasonable time in a manner that violated the accused’s rights unacceptably.

                  A stay of proceedings can restore accused people’s reputations and allow them to move forward with their lives.