Legal Challenge to CPC Pardon Law

Help throw out the Harper Government’s unfair pardon limits

Update: Read more about the challenge in the Globe and Mail

In March 2012, the Harper government's massive crime bill , Bill C-10, became law. This bill severely limited the availability of house arrest, imposed mandatory minimum sentences, required harsher treatment of young offenders, and increased the waiting periods for pardons.

 Because of this bill, one of our clients, M.C., has been stripped of his ability to move on from his past. He committed a crime, but he did his time. And for years, worked hard to turn his life around. Just before he was eligible under the old rules to apply for a pardon, he was told that he would have to wait another five years.

The real problem is that these rules applied retroactively to him and everyone else.

We live in a just society that believes people can move on from their past mistakes. But Harper doesn’t seem to believe so. Even after serving their full sentence, Harper wants to keep the stigma of a criminal conviction attached to Canadian citizens as long as he possibly can.

There is no forgiveness or fairness in this legislation. This is not what Canadians stand for.

 
The Truth about Bill C-10:

 Bill C-10 follows the same Conservative “tough on crime” approach that Canadian courts have continuously held violates the rights of Canadians.

 The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, John Howard Society, The Canadian Bar Association, and many others opposed the law, but Harper and his government pressed on, rushing to make the Bill law.

 Our Supreme Court has already struck down several Conservative government laws on mandatory minimum sentences  , retroactive parole limits, and limits on credit given for time spent in pre-trial custody. But these rulings did not stop Harper’s government from continuing to bring more rights-violating criminal laws into place.

Many of the measures in Bill C-10 not only deny Canadians their constitutional rights, they are also unfair, counterproductive and costly.

That is why Abergel Goldstein & Partners is assisting M.C in his plan to challenge the retroactive pardon elegibility changes in Bill C-10, but M.C. needs your help.

We can’t promise victory – but we can’t win if we don’t fight.

The changes to the pardon rules apply across the board, with blind eyes.  They apply equally to a single mother who commits welfare fraud, a young adult who causes mischief, or repeat offenders who commit a violent offence.

This U.S.-style “tough on crime” law disproportionately affects the poor, the weak, and the disadvantaged. These are the people who can least afford to challenge those in power.

This is why we have taken on this case.

Here are the facts:

In 2008, our client M.C. pleaded guilty to selling cocaine to a police officer. By pleading guilty, he admitted to all of the facts of the Crown’s case against him and took responsibility for his actions.

At the time of the offences, M.C. was himself using, having turned to drugs to escape depression and anxiety issues. After his plea, M.C. underwent addiction counselling and completed an addictions educational program.

M.C. took responsibility for his criminal past by serving his sentence, and completely turning his life around.

Most importantly, he stopped using drugs. M.C. became a productive member of society. He maintained steady part-time employment as a produce clerk. He repaired his relationship with his family. He saved enough money to enroll in a full-time Networking Administration program. He planned to graduate in the fall of September 2015, but his College went bankrupt. He’s now back where he started.

Because of his past convictions, continuing in his studies is a bad investment for M.C. Even if he successfully made it through a program, there’s no guarantee he would be eligible  to apply for a job in his field.

Here is the problem – the government changed the pardon rules after M.C. had completed his sentence.

M.C. counted on his ability to apply for a pardon – this is part of the reason why he chose to plead guilty in the first place. He saved up and enrolled for College assuming he could obtain a pardon before his date of graduation.

But the Conservatives doubled the waiting period for a pardon from 5 years to 10 years. And they subjected M.C., and countless others who completed their sentence already, to this brand new increase in punishment.

This is why Harper’s law must be challenged.  It is unfair to change the rules after a sentence has been served.  The Supreme Court has already ruled that it violates our Constitutional rights to impose a retroactive punishment.


Where would your money go?

Challenging the constitutionality of a law is expensive.

Public interest litigation can take years, even a decade. But we feel it is a worthy investment to change unjust laws.

We have discounted our rates but we can only do so much.  This is why M.C is seeking to raise $20,000 – to pay for two of our lawyers, to collect expert evidence, and to demand fairness and hold the Conservative government to account.

The litigation will be spearheaded by Michael Spratt   and Chelsea Moore. We will detail our work on our firm website and do our best to keep you up-to-date.

Any donated money will be used to fund the litigation.  If we don’t reach the goal or the litigation fails, any donated money will be used to fund other public interest litigation.  By donating you are not a party to the litigation and the normal solicitor/client rules of privacy apply.


Please help M.C. and people like him stand up for the basic rules of justice and fairness.