Call Us 24/7 AT (416) 658-1818
Innocence Canada, previously known as the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted or AIDWYC, is a non-profit Canadian organization. It was established in 1993 with the primary purpose of identifying and advocating for those who have been wrongfully accused and convicted of a crime.
Another important aspect of Innocence Canada's mandate, as mentioned on its website, is to prevent wrongful convictions through the promotion of legal education and reform. The organization has a successful track record, having aided in the exoneration of 20 innocent individuals who were serving prison sentences for crimes they did not commit. Currently, approximately 100 claims of innocence are under review by Innocence Canada’s team of pro-bono lawyers.
The process of overturning a wrongful conviction for an innocent person is not straightforward. The requirement to follow different procedural paths to rectify a miscarriage of justice is essential. Following a charge for a criminal offence, the innocent person can choose either to plead guilty or not guilty. Historically, innocent people have been selected to plead guilty due to various reasons. This decision is often driven by fears of conviction and the desire to minimize their sentence.
In situations where an innocent person proceeds to trial and is found guilty, they are termed as "wrongly convicted", as they have been convicted for a crime they did not commit. Such a conviction tends to lead to adverse outcomes, including imprisonment, social stigmatization, and reduced employment prospects.
To challenge the wrongful conviction, the convicted individual can request a higher court to reassess the decision made by the trial court. This starts with the provincial Court of Appeal. A panel of three judges reviews the case jointly at the Court of Appeal level. The grounds for an appeal against a conviction can be due to the untowardness of the verdict, an instance of legal error, or a miscarriage of justice.
The Court of Appeal has the discretion to either dismiss the appeal or allow it and quash the conviction. If the latter happens, the Court of Appeal can either enter an acquittal or order a new trial. It is worth noting that, despite a person's innocence, the Court of Appeal does not have the authority to formally declare someone innocent. The policy and jurisdiction behind this are to avoid creating two classes of people: those found to be factually innocent and those who have benefited from the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In cases where the conviction is affirmed on appeal (i.e., the conviction remains in place), the convicted person can resort to two other ways to have their conviction reassessed. They can go to the Supreme Court of Canada, the country's highest court; or they can submit an application to the Minister of Justice under section 696.1 on the argument that the case indicates a miscarriage of justice.
The right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is automatic only if the decision being appealed was not unanimous at the Court of Appeal level. If it was unanimous, the convicted person must seek "leave to appeal", essentially asking for permission. Upon getting the permission, they can then appeal to the Supreme Court.
The decision of R.v. McArthur 2012 ONSC 5773, where Innocence Canada acted as an Intervenor, means that even if the convicted person did not appeal to the Supreme Court, they can still make applications under s.696.1. Ministerial review of applications is seen as an extraordinary remedy, requiring the Minister of Justice to reconsider the case as a likely miscarriage of justice. If the Minister finds the case likely represents a miscarriage of justice, they may direct a new trial or refer the matter to the Court of Appeal.
If a new trial is ordered by the Minister, the decision reached at this new trial exceeds the previous verdict given at the original trial. If the matter is referred to the Court of Appeal, it will quash the original conviction and decide between ordering a new trial, entering an acquittal, or making any other order that justice demands (for example, a stay of proceedings which lets the Crown relay charges within one year of the stay).
In a situation where the Crown decides to withdraw charges or fails to relay charges within one year after a stay ordered by the Court of Appeal, the proceedings will effectively come to an end as there will be no charges on record. The paths a wrongly convicted person can take through the criminal justice system to rectify a wrongful conviction are depicted in a chart that is not included in this text.
