Canadians Can Go Back to Masturbating in the Comfort of Their Own Homes

The Supreme Court of Canada overturned a man’s conviction in one of the most bizarre cases this writer’s heard of — a British Columbia man had been convicted in 2000 of indecency for masturbating in his own living room.

Two of the man’s busybody neighbors were able to witness the event through an opening in the man’s living room blinds. Of course in order to do so, first they had to uses first binoculars and then a telescope (the husband actually tried to videotape the man).

The man already served a four month prison sentence (!), but the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 9-0 that since the man clearly did not realize he was being watched — and who expects the idiot neighbors to pull out a telescope (doesn’t Canada have Peeping Tom laws?) — he was not acting indecently.

Writing for the court, Mr. Justice Morris Fish wrote,

I do not believe it [the indecency law] contemplates the ability of those who are neither entitled, nor invited, to enter a place to see or hear from the outside — through uncovered windows or open doors — what is transpiring inside.

Thank goodness it is once again safe to masturbate in the comfort of one’s home in Canada.

Sources:

Court OKs masturbation at home. Wendy Cox, Cnews, January 27, 2005.

Living romo window not public, Supreme Court rules. Globe and Mail, January 27, 2005.

Share

Man Acquitted on Charges of Performing Oral Sex without Girlfriend’s Consent

The Nova Scotia Chronicle Herald reports that a jury in Sydney deliberated only 10 minutes to find a man not guilty of performing oral sex on his girlfriend without her consent. Apparently prosecutors in Canada don’t have much real crime to prosecute if they can devote resources to such ludicrous cases.

After having what the Chronicle Herald characterized as a “bitter fight” with her boyfriend, the woman went to police and reported that five days earlier she had awoken to find her boyfriend performing oral sex on her. The boyfriend testified that the woman was, in fact, awake throughout the sex act and, in fact, “moving around . . . [and] moaning.”

Apparently the jury found the case groan-inducing as well.

Source:

Cape Breton man found not guilty in oral sex case. The Chronicle Herald (Nova Scotia), January 29, 2004.

Share

Saskatchewan Government Says It’s Not Sorry for Malicious Prosecution

A judge recently ruled that a family accused of ritual abuse had been the victim of “malicious prosecution” but that hasn’t stopped representatives of the Saskatchewan government from saying it did nothing wrong and has nothing to apologize for.

The case against 12 members of the Klassen family began in 1987 when three foster children — a boy and his twin sisters — made accusations of incredibly bizarre ritual sexual abuse against their foster parents which soon led to allegations against twelve family members.

The children’s accusations were filled with bizarre ritual abuse, including claims that they were forced to eat eye balls, drink blood, participate in orgies, and watch while infants were skinned alive.

Police in Saskatoon called it the “scandal of the century” but few charges were actually lodged against anyone and by 1993 all charges in the cases were stayed. The children later came forward to repudiate the stories. The boy had been removed shortly before making the allegations after he had been found abusing his sisters. He maintained he made up the stories in order to be reunited with his sisters whom he then convinced to go along with the fiction.

On December 30 a judge ruled that Crown Prosecutor Matthew Miazga, Saskatoon Police Superintendent Brian Dueck, and child therapist Carol Bunko-Ruys were guilty of malicious prosecution. Shortly afterward, Saskatoon police chief Russell Sabo publicly apologized to the Klassen’s and promised an investigation into what went wrong in the investigation of the case.

Sabo said,

The judgment in this case vindicates the plaintiffs for the criminal charges they faced. Based on the information contained in the judgment, as the chief of police of the Saskatoon police service, my sympathy goes to each and every person that was wrongfully charged and I extend my apologies to them for any part that the Saskatoon police service played in this case.

But Saskatchewan Justice Minister Frank Quennell was having none of it, telling Canoe.Com,

It is our position that Crown prosecutors did not commit a wrong and there is no reason they would be required to apologize in that circumstance.

Quennell is probably afraid of the millions of dollars that Saskatchewan is going to have to pay out to the Klassen’s and perhaps even the twin sisters. They are also suing Saskatchewan, arguing that police social workers and others did nothing to protect them from the abuse they were subjected to by their brother.

Sources:

Twins hail malicious prosecution victory. CBC News, December 31, 2003.

NDP Must Take Responsibility for Klassen Family Tragedy and Negotiate Payment Immediately. Press Release, SKCaucus.Com, January 8, 2004.

Sask. government won’t apologize in abuse case. Canoe.CaTim Cook, January 8, 2004

Saskatchewan offers Klassen no apology. Darren Yourk, Globe and Mail, January 8, 2004.

Share

Canadian Supreme Court Strengthens Divorce Agreements

In a 7-2 ruling the Canadian Supreme Court reversed several lower court rulings in saying that divorce agreements should be respected unless truly unforeseen circumstances occur that require revisiting them.

The case before the Court involved Linda Miglin who succeeded in having lower courts revise a divorce agreement she had reached with her husband in 1994. The Miglins owned a successful lodge in which they had capital of about $250,000. The divorce agreement called for Eric Miglin to pay his wife $60,000/year in child support, employ her for 5 years at $15,000/year as a consultant for the lodge, and swap her interest in the lodge for the family home (which was worth roughly $250,000).

Eric Miglin fulfilled his obligations under the divorce agreement, but years later, apparently having difficulty finding a job, Linda Miglin asked a court to grant her $4,400 a month in spousal support even though the divorce agreement between the couple specifically ruled out any future spousal support.

Linda Miglin argued that she didn’t realize what she was signing away with the divorce agreement, a contention that the Supreme Court didn’t lend credence given that both parties were represented by lawyers whose job it was to defend their interests.

Lower courts ruled that since Linda Miglin’s circumstances had materially changed, that she was entitled to seek a change in the divorce agreement. The majority opinion of the Canadian Supreme Court disagreed with this, noting that it was inevitable that some unforeseeable material changes would inevitably take place after any divorce agreement,

Some degree of change in the circumstances of the parties is always foreseeable, as agreements are prospective of in nature. Parties are presumed to be aware that health, job markets, parental responsibilities, housing markets and values of assets are all subject to change.

The Supreme Court ruling essentially restored the older standard that the material change in question must have been unforseen but materially connected with the marriage.

Source:

Top court toughens divorce deal rules. Kirk Makin, Global and Mail, April 17, 2003.

Till Death Do Us Part: The Miglin Decision. Spring 2001.

Hey guys, let death do you part. Margaret Wente, The Globe and Mail, May 3, 2001.

A contract is a contract — even in family law. Judith C. Sidlofsky Stoffman, GuelphMercury.Com, April 28, 2003.

Share