Sex Offenders Must Prove Their Way to SOIRA Exemption

Today, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled on what a convicted sex offender must do to qualify for the exemption from the Sex Offender Information Registration Act found in s. 490.012 (4) of the Criminal Code.

In the unanimous decision in R. v. Redhead, 2006 ABCA 84

R. v. Redhead

the Court concluded that the focus must be on determining whether the impact of a SOIRA order on an offender would be grossly disproportionate to the benefit to the public interest and that the offender must call evidence of such impact otherwise no exemption is available:

...Patently, the impact on anyone who is subject to the reporting requirements of a SOIRA order is considerable. But absent disproportional impact, the legislation mandates that anyone convicted of a prescribed offence is subject to the prescribed reporting period.

[34] This Court has held that the failure of an offender to adduce evidence of the impact of a DNA order on his or her privacy and security mandates the issuance of the order: R. v. Isbister (2002), 303 A.R. 22, 2002 ABCA 54. Similarly, an offender has the onus to adduce evidence of the impact of a SOIRA order on him or her when seeking an exemption.

[35] In both cases before this Court, the trial judges erred in overlooking the lack of evidence of the impact of a SOIRA on the offender.

...

[44] If the exception in s. 490.012(4) is so narrow that the SOIRA order is effectively mandatory, then the exception becomes meaningless: Have, supra at para. 17. However, in the absence of evidence of the impact of such an order on the offenders, it is impossible to assess whether such impact would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest.