Judge finds driver not guilty in death of skateboarder

Windsor Star.

Brandin Crosier was not guilty of criminal negligence and dangerous driving when he struck skateboarder Adam Pouget on a foggy road in Amherstburg in November 2016, a judge ruled Monday.

There was stunned silence after Ontario Court Justice Sharman Bondy gave her decision. Then the sobs of Pouget’s family and friends filled the Windsor courtroom.

The prosecution failed to prove Crosier’s attempt to pass a vehicle on County Road 18 in the fog on the morning of Nov. 17, 2016, made him guilty of either criminal charge, Bondy said. When Crosier moved over to pass, his 2011 Ford Focus struck Pouget, who was skateboarding in the opposite direction.

Continue reading “Judge finds driver not guilty in death of skateboarder”

Driver Found Not Guilty In Crash That Claimed Amherstburg Man Skateboarding To Work

AM800 News.

An Amherstburg man has been found not guilty in a crash that claimed the life of a father of four children who was skateboarding to work.

Brandin Crosier, 24, had been charged with criminal negligence causing death after he struck Adam Pouget on a foggy morning in November 2016.

He was also found not guilty of the lesser offence of dangerous driving causing death. Continue reading “Driver Found Not Guilty In Crash That Claimed Amherstburg Man Skateboarding To Work”

Building trust between client and attorney

How does one build the trust that is required between client and attorney?

Surprisingly, most individuals, unique as they are, have very similar needs, especially when they come to lawyers for help. They need to feel, for example, that their lawyer is eager to take their case. They need to believe that their lawyer is prepared to defend the case fearlessly. You will satisfy this need not only by knowing the client but by “seeing” the case, at least initially, from the client’s perspective, not yours.

Knowing the client, building the trust, involves small steps, none costly. Treat the client like a treasured member of your family. Greet him personally when he arrives at the office rather than dispatching a staff member to fetch him from the waiting room. If someone told you that your mother or father had just arrived in your waiting room, would you send a staff member to get them and bring them to you? Once in your office, remember that the desk itself is a barrier. Remove all barriers metaphorically, if not literally. Ask the question, and mean it: How can I help you?

In this way, the first meeting is always friendly, non-threatening. Some lawyers, not wanting to waste time (“Time is money”), use the first meeting to immediately challenge the client’s story, looking for weaknesses in it, trying to determine what the defence strategy might ultimately be. Patience, I say. There will be plenty of time for critical inquisition later. The first meeting requires more understanding, more listening, more learning.

I am not suggesting here that there can be no discussion whatsoever of fees during the first meeting. But if they are discussed at all, the discussion should occur at or near the end of the meeting. And it should be premised on the client’s need to know the business arrangements, because obviously a major concern of every client is the cost of the service provided. The client wants, needs and deserves to have this information. And that should be the spirit in which it is given. Never, ever, should the premise be that the lawyer does not trust the client and therefore needs certain commitments from the client “up front” or the lawyer will show him the door.

This is an excerpt from Patrick Ducharme’s book.

Meeting the Client: Be Interested, Stay Interested

A common complaint against criminal trial lawyers is that, at bottom, they tend to show little empathy for their clients. We are said to show more concern for ourselves, and our fee, than for the person who, after all, stands accused of a crime and faces the daunting power and authority of the police and prosecution. It may be true: the longer the lawyer toils away at this business, the greater the possibility that the lawyer will be insensitive to the particular plight of the individual charged.

The reason is that while clients come and go the lawyer’s daily experience remains relatively the same. And the more experience the lawyer acquires the less intimidating, the more routine, is the entire trial process. It is not arrogance or indifference which sets in, but the appearance of them. Hence, my first suggestion: be interested, stay interested. No matter how familiar the accused or the offences charged, try to know the client. Really. Know who that person is.

Someone once said that every human being has a thousand faces. Every human being is special and unique. What’s special about your client? Only when you know this should you concern yourself in detail with the manner and timing of the payment of fees. Build trust with the client. When you do, how and when you will be paid will be a natural part of the relationship.

This was an except from my latest book.

* In the next excerpt, I will answer the question “How does one build the trust”?

Book: 2018 Criminal Practice and Procedure

Patrick Ducharme's book: 2018 Criminal Practice & Procedure
2018 Criminal Practice & Procedure, by Patrick Ducharme

Print date: March 31, 2018

Patrick Ducharme’s 2018 Criminal Practice and Procedure is the definitive guide to understanding procedural, evidentiary and substantive criminal law principles. It refers to new appellate decisions impacting these areas of law up to and including its date of publication in March 31, 2018. Although prepared for third year law students, it also serves as an excellent, up-to-date, authoritative consideration of Canadian criminal law, a beneficial tool to all criminal law practitioners, regardless of their level of experience.
It is written by an experienced practitioner whose writing style is sharp and to the point, without legalese. It follows Lord Balfour’s admonition: talk English, not law. Ducharme clarifies complex legal principles using concise language. Even difficult concepts, such as the co-actor’s exception to the hearsay rule, are explained precisely, understandably, using the language of a seasoned trial lawyer like flashing lights on a dark night.


Minimum Age for Criminal Conviction in Canada

Criminal Law Specialist Patrick Ducharme
Criminal Law Specialist Patrick Ducharme

In Canada, the minimum age for a criminal conviction is twelve.

Section 13 of the Criminal Code of Canada (“the Code”) provides that no person shall be convicted of an offence while that person was under the age of 12. Age is measured by chronological age and not according to intellectual capacity.1 Although the Code exempts a child from criminal liability, an adult may still be found to be a party to an offence committed by someone less than 12 years of age.2


1 R. v. Sawchuk, (1991), 66 CCC (3d) 255 [1991] 5 WWR 381 (MBCA)

2 R. v. D. (R.C.), 1991 Carswell Ont 2215

This is a short excerpt from Patrick Ducharme’s book, 2018 Criminal Practice and Procedure, which is scheduled to be printed by April 30, 2018.

Overview of Canadian Criminal Procedure

In the criminal justice system, jurisdiction is the legal power by which a court is authorized to preside over the hearing of a particular offence and accused. A Superior Court of a Province or Territory has original and plenary jurisdiction in all criminal matters unless its jurisdiction is expressly prohibited by statute. Additionally, a Superior Court has an inherent supervisory role to remedy procedural unfairness. All appellate courts, by their very nature, have jurisdiction only to hear appeals where that jurisdiction is expressly conferred upon the appellate court by statute.

Even the consent of an accused cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court where such jurisdiction does not exist by statute or common-law. An accused person is permitted to waive compliance with common-law requirements on procedural or evidentiary matters, as long as that waiver is express and informed. Our courts have consistently found a true waiver requires a demonstration that the accused is aware of the consequences of the waiver.1

1 R. v. Clarkson, [1986] 1 SCR 383 (SCC).

This is a short excerpt from Patrick Ducharme’s book 2018 Criminal Practice and Procedure.

Appeal judges must decide if Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre guards waited too long for trial in inmate Adam Kargus’s death

The London Free Press.

TORONTO – The fate of two London correctional staffers charged in the death of an inmate rests in the hands of three judges now weighing complex legal arguments in the midst of a shifting Canadian justice landscape.

The faith in the justice system of a mother who lost her son is in their hands, too.

“To my last breath, when I join my son, that’s how long I will be on it,” a determined Deb Abrams said outside the Ontario Court of Appeal Wednesday.
Continue reading “Appeal judges must decide if Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre guards waited too long for trial in inmate Adam Kargus’s death”

EMDC: Lawyers for jail workers implicated in inmate Adam Kargus’s death argue long process breached rights

The London Free Press.

Two former correctional staff at London’s provincial jail, their cases caught up in a fight over justice delays, will learn next month if they’ll go to trial over the death of inmate Adam Kargus.

Patrick Ducharme. Photo Credit: Windsor Star
Patrick Ducharme. Photo Credit: Windsor Star

The province and lawyers for the two will argue in Ontario’s highest court whether the long delay between being charged and the start of the trial breached the rights of the accused to a fair trial.

Many of the arguments rely on arcane, he-said, she-said calculations over what side caused the long delay.

Continue reading “EMDC: Lawyers for jail workers implicated in inmate Adam Kargus’s death argue long process breached rights”