Answer: The person testifying is the defendant in a criminal case: This is an extension of the protection under the Fifth Amendment. Criminal defendants can never be forced to testify. The witness is married to someone involved in the case: Communication between two spouses is considered privileged by courts.
Explanation:
It was left in the hands of the executive branch to solve
Primary obligations are not within the statute of frauds and therefore need not be in writing to be enforceable.
The primary difference between law enforcement in Canada and the USA, as many here have already noted, emanates from the following: criminal law in Canada falls solely under federal jurisdiction. This reality begets a uniformity in police training here, although I’d argue that there’s no parity in quality. This contrasts notably with America, where criminal law is both a federal and state matter. The resulting convoluted and inefficient law enforcement, furthermore, essentially mirrors that of American governance as well.
While some assert that Canadian policing is more professional, I think our law enforcement is less politicised than American. Reflecting how American governance emphasises local autonomy, Sheriffs are elected in the USA, something unheard of in Canada. Likewise, the idea of electing a Crown Prosecutor is considered absurd here.
As others have already answered, Canadian policing includes the RCMP, provincial police in Ontario and Quebec, and municipal police forces. Regarding the RCMP, there’s no real American equivalent to it in my opinion, because American law enforcement historically never had paramilitary origins as did the NWMP. The often derided pop historian, Pierre Burton, was correct in describing the original Mountie as a British soldier. Not only did this differentiate the history of Canada’s West from America’s, but facilitated the evolution of a different policing culture here, altogether.
