In Canada, obstruction of justice isn’t limited to the notorious cases that make news headlines; it’s a serious criminal offence that can impact everyday people in unexpected ways. Maybe you’re worried about actions that might seem trivial or perhaps you’re facing an actual charge.
In this post, we’ll break down the essentials: what qualifies as obstructing justice, how it’s prosecuted, and the approach that skilled criminal defence lawyers, like those at Jaswal & Krueger, take to defend against these charges. Whether you’re facing a charge or simply want clarity on the law, this is the place to start.
What Is Obstruction of Justice?
So, what exactly qualifies as obstruction of justice? Obstruction of justice covers actions that interfere with or prevent the legal process from proceeding fairly and efficiently under the Canadian Criminal Code (CC).
Obstruction of justice is not just a matter of “doing the wrong thing.” Intent matters. For a charge of obstruction to to turn into a conviction, the individual must have knowingly acted to hinder or manipulate the justice system. What does this look like? It’s more than one might expect.
Examples of Obstructive Acts
- Destroying Evidence: Disposing of, altering, or hiding physical evidence that might be relevant in a trial or investigation.
- Interfering with Witnesses: This includes intimidating a witness, bribing them, or pressuring them to withhold information.
- Providing False Information: Whether to law enforcement or to the court, knowingly providing false details can obstruct the truth-finding process.
- Manipulating Jurors: Attempting to influence a juror’s perspective or decision, whether through threats, incentives, or personal persuasion.
Is Obstruction of Justice a Criminal Offence in Canada?
Yes, obstruction is absolutely a criminal offence in Canada. And it’s treated very seriously. But what does that actually mean for you? At its core, this charge is about interfering with how justice is carried out. Our system relies on clear rules to get to the truth. When someone intentionally disrupts this process—whether by hiding evidence, misleading police, or pressuring witnesses—it goes beyond inconvenience. It hits at the integrity of the entire system.
If you’re facing an obstruction charge, the consequences can be significant. Fines are one thing, but prison time is very possible depending on how serious the interference was. And beyond that, a conviction sticks with you. It can impact everything: job prospects, your reputation, even the ability to travel. For many, it’s life-changing.
Penalties
In Canada, a conviction results in a criminal record and varying levels of other penalties; up to 10 years in prison if prosecuted as an indictable offence, or lesser penalties if prosecuted as a summary conviction offence, including fines and probation.
What Must the Prosecution Prove?
In any obstruction case, it’s not just about proving that interference occurred. The prosecution has to clear a high bar, meeting specific standards. Let’s break it down.
Intent
First, the Crown has to show that someone intentionally attempts to interfere. Intent is everything in obstruction cases. It’s not enough to suggest you accidentally disrupted an investigation. Did you know what you were doing? For example, if someone throws away a document without realizing it’s evidence, it’s hard for the Crown to argue obstruction. Why? Because intent—the deliberate decision to interfere—isn’t there. And without intent, the charge is not proven in law.
Types of Evidence
Evidence in obstruction cases comes in many forms: text messages, phone recordings, witness statements. Imagine, for instance, a message suggesting a witness “forget” key details. Looks suspicious, right? But not all evidence holds up. Defence teams will always look at how the evidence was gathered, its relevance, and even its clarity. If any of these factors don’t check out, the evidence could lose strength. The evidence needs to be solid, or the case could fall apart.
Burden of Proof
The prosecution must prove every essential element of the obstruction charge beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s a high standard, and it exists for a reason. It’s there to protect people from being convicted on shaky evidence. For the defence, this burden of proof can be a key point. If there’s doubt about the accused’s intent or actions, that doubt can tip the scales. And sometimes, that’s all it takes.
