Navigation Links
Common menu bar
Breadcrumb
- Home >
- The Federal Prosecution Service DESKBOOK >
- Protocol on Interprovincial Issues
The Federal Prosecution Service DESKBOOK
[ Previous | Table of Contents | Next ]
FPT HEADS OF PROSECUTION PROTOCOL ON INTERPROVINCIAL ISSUES
Part I – Prosecution of multi-jurisdictional offences (approved on April 26, 2002)
Background
At the May, 2001 meeting of the Heads of Prosecutions Committee held in St. John's, Newfoundland, a small working group was formed composed of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia representatives to develop a draft protocol to deal with multi-jurisdictional offences.
The provincial representatives developed a draft protocol which was considered by the Heads Prosecutions Committee at its November, 2001 meeting in Quebec City. The comments of Committee members have resulted in the following revisions to the original draft.
Introduction
In order to ensure the effective prosecution of offences committed by an individual or a corporation in more than one jurisdiction, the members of the Heads of Prosecutions Committee have developed a protocol which would be implemented in the following circumstances:
- Where an individual or corporation has committed an offence in more than one jurisdiction.
- Each affected province or territory would have jurisdiction under the Criminal Code to prosecute the matter and has determined that it would otherwise proceed with the prosecution.
Definitions
“Lead Jurisdiction
” means the jurisdiction which, having regard to:
- the location of the accused, or,
- where the chief base of operations for the criminal activity involved is located, or
- where the majority of witnesses are likely to reside,
is the appropriate jurisdiction to conduct a prosecution with multi-jurisdictional aspects.
“Cooperating Jurisdiction
” means a province or territory with jurisdiction under the Criminal Code to prosecute an individual or corporation committing an offence with multi-jurisdictional aspects and which has determined that it would otherwise proceed with such a prosecution.
Coordination
Each prosecution service will identify a multi-jurisdictional offence coordinator to facilitate the handling of the prosecution of multi-jurisdictional offences. The role of the coordinator will be to contact the other affected jurisdictions and address the following:
- achieving a consensus as to which jurisdiction is best positioned to act as the lead jurisdiction;
- the extent to which each affected jurisdiction will be responsible for the costs related to the prosecution including costs of witness travel to the lead jurisdiction for the purpose of testifying at either a preliminary inquiry or trial in relation to the multi-jurisdictional offence/s. The use of video and/or audio links, as provided under the Criminal Code, should be considered as an alternative to the personal attendance of witnesses;
- the provision of prosecutorial assistance by a Cooperating Province to the lead jurisdiction.
Part II – Guiding Principles for the Inter-Provincial Transfer of Charges (approved on June 16, 2004)
Background
This protocol addresses the definition of responsibilities and accountability between transferring and recipient provinces, territories, and the Federal Prosecution Service under s.478 of the Criminal code.
Statement of Principle
It is understood that an originating jurisdiction, in agreeing to transfer of a charge to another, is effectively waiving control over that charge, subject to the provisions of this protocol.
Reduction / Withdrawal of Charges
Reduction of charges or withdrawal of multiple counts (i.e. s.334/s.355; s.253(a); s.253(b)) should be delineated by the originating jurisdiction prior to transfer. The receiving jurisdiction should consult with the originating jurisdiction regarding any proposed reduction or withdrawal of a transferred charge.
Sentencing Representations to the Court
While the receiving jurisdiction will take into consideration any recommendations as to sentence offered by the originating jurisdiction, the position to be taken on sentencing will be determined by the receiving jurisdiction (in accordance with the sentencing regime of the receiving jurisdiction). The Crown in the originating jurisdiction should communicate to defence counsel and unrepresented applicants for transfers in the originating jurisdiction that any recommendation on sentence agreed to before transfer will not be binding in the receiving jurisdiction.
The Decision to Appeal
The decision to appeal a sentence rests with the receiving jurisdiction. That jurisdiction may seek input from the originating jurisdiction in this regard, but shall be guided by the principles and ranges, as established by that jurisdiction's appellate courts.
Limitation on Transfer Requests
Generally, only one request for the transfer of charges between jurisdictions will be considered, subject to any exceptional circumstances which may exist. This should be communicated to applicants for transfer by the originating jurisdiction.
Victims / Victim Impact Statements
In considering whether or not to transfer a charge, the originating jurisdiction must consider the interests of the victim, as well as the offender. Should the Crown in the originating jurisdiction receive an indication from the victim that he/she wishes to participate in person in the sentencing proceeding, this position should be considered prior to transferring the criminal charge. Where a charge is transferred, Victim Impact Statements which have been prepared will be provided in separate sealed envelopes to the receiving jurisdiction along with the charges and other related documentation.
Where the matter is sensitive and has significant public interest and concern, the originating jurisdiction should advise victims that the matter is being waived and that the ultimate control over the filing of Victim Impact Statements will be subject to the policies and practices of Crown Counsel in the receiving jurisdiction. Victims in these circumstances will be provided a telephone number or other contact means to reach the Crown in the receiving jurisdiction in order to express their concerns about the filing of victim impact information. Otherwise, the filing of victim impact information should be at the discretion of the receiving Crown, with the benefit of recommendations from the originating jurisdiction but based on the receiving jurisdiction's policies and practices.
Documentation
All receiving jurisdictions will attempt to provide certified copies of sentencing documentation to the originating jurisdiction.
Determination of the Facts
Crown counsel in the originating jurisdiction should ensure that a summary of the facts is included in the documentation transferred to the receiving jurisdiction. Save in exceptional circumstances, Crown counsel in the receiving jurisdiction, in making representations to a Court, should not vary from the facts as determined by the Crown in the originating jurisdiction. This protocol does not provide for witnesses to travel from the originating jurisdiction to the receiving jurisdiction to establish the facts. Where it is proposed to vary from the facts as submitted by the originating jurisdiction, Crown Counsel in the receiving jurisdiction is encouraged to contact the Crown in the originating jurisdiction. A dispute as to the facts which cannot be resolved by Crown counsel in the receiving jurisdiction will result in the return of the file to the original jurisdiction for its attention.
Charges Under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Currently, the Federal Prosecution Service (FPS), New Brunswick, Quebec, and Alberta (with respect to proceedings respecting youth, only) undertake the prosecution of CDSA charges. These jurisdictions may refer such charges to either a provincial prosecuting agency which undertakes such prosecutions, or to the FPS for disposition.
Where these matters fall within the prosecutorial responsibility of the Attorney General of Canada, prosecutors or standing agents engaged by the Federal Prosecution Service will generally conduct such transferred proceedings in the receiving jurisdiction, unless the FPS opts to request the involvement of a provincial prosecution service.
Administration
All jurisdictions are encouraged to have one office to coordinate transfers to and from that jurisdiction. In any jurisdiction where this is not feasible, that jurisdiction will provide all jurisdictions with a list of those individuals within that prosecution service who are responsible for transfer of criminal charges.
[ Previous | Table of Contents | Next ]