Supreme Court of Canada Hearings

Jesse Dallas Hills v. Her Majesty the Queen (39338)

(PUBLICATION BAN)The appellant, Jesse Dallas Hills, pled guilty to four charges from an incident in May 2014 where he swung a baseball bat and fired a shot with his rifle at an occupied vehicle, smashed the window of a parked vehicle and shot a few rounds into an occupied family residence. One of the charges was the intentional discharging of a firearm into or at a place, knowing that or being reckless as to whether another person is present in the place under s. 244.2(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, which carries a minimum four year imprisonment sentence. Mr. Hills alleged that the minimum sentence under s. 244.2(3)(b) of the Criminal Code violated his constitutional right to not be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment by virtue of s. 12 of the Charter.At trial, Mr. Hills presented a scenario that he claimed could reasonably occur and for which the four year mandatory minimum sentence would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Taking into account this hypothetical case proposed by Mr. Hills where a young person intentionally fires an air powered pistol or rifle at a residence, the trial judge found that despite the minimum four year sentence not resulting in a grossly disproportionate sentence for Mr. Hills, it is reasonably foreseeable that it would result in a grossly disproportionate sentence for other potential offenders. The trial judge therefore found that the mandatory minimum sentence contravened s. 12 of the Charter and could not be saved by s. 1. As a result, he declared s. 244.2(3)(b) of the Criminal Code to be of no force and effect. Mr. Hills was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three and a half years.The Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s finding of unconstitutionality and set aside the declaration of invalidity in a judgment containing three separate concurring reasons. Justices O’Ferrall and Wakeling were critical of the expansive usage of hypotheticals in this Court’s s. 12 Charter jurisprudence and invited this Court to abandon it. The appeal against the sentence for discharging a firearm was allowed and the sentence was increased to four years imprisonment. Argued Date 2022-03-22 Keywords Canadian charter (Criminal) - Criminal law, Sentencing - Charter of Rights — Criminal law — Sentencing — Mandatory minimum sentence — Whether the Alberta Court of Appeal erred in finding that s. 244.2(3)(b) of the Criminal Code does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment that violates s. 12 of the Charter — Whether the Alberta Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider the appellant’s Métis status in re sentencing him — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 46, s. 244.2(3)(b). Notes (Alberta) (Criminal) (By Leave) (Publication ban in case) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

David Beckman, in his capacity as Director, Agriculture Branch, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, et al. v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nati...

Aboriginal law - Self government - Land claims - Fiduciary duty - Treaty rights - Duty to consult - Whether there is a duty to consult and, where possible, accommodate First Nations’ concerns and interests in the context of a modern comprehensive land claims agreement - If there is a duty to consult, what is the scope of that duty and was it met in this case?The Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation entered into a land claims agreement (“Final Agreement”) with Canada and Yukon in 1997 after a long, intensively negotiated process.On November 2001, Larry Paulsen submitted an application for an agricultural land grant of approximately 65 hectares of Yukon Crown land. The land is within the boundaries of the Respondent Mr. Sam’s trapping concession issued to him under the Wildlife Act, R.S.Y. 2002, c. 229, which grants him the exclusive right to trap commercially in the area. Under s. 6.2 of the Final Agreement, all Little Salmon/Carmacks members have the right of access to Crown land for subsistence harvesting in their traditional territory except where the Crown land is subject to an agreement for sale such as would be the case if the Paulsen application was approved and the land grant made. The 65 hectares represented by the Paulsen application is approximately one third of one percent of the trapline area of Mr. Sam which totals 21 435 hectares.The Paulsen application was reviewed by the Agriculture Branch of the Yukon Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and by the Agriculture Land Application Review Committee between 2001 and 2004. Little Salmon/Carmacks was not notified of the initial review and had no opportunity to raise concerns. It was then reviewed by the Land Application Review Committee (LARC). Members of LARC include Yukon government and federal and municipal government agencies as well as Yukon First Nations including Little Salmon/Carmacks. LARC gave notice of the Paulsen application by advertising in local newspapers, mailing application material to all residents living within one kilometre of the parcel and mailing a letter and package of information to Little Salmon/Carmacks, the Selkirk First Nation and the Carmacks Renewable Resources Council. The letter and package invited comments on the application within 30 days and it included notice of a meeting date. Little Salmon/Carmacks expressed its concern with respect to the Paulsen application by letter but the Director of Little Salmon/Carmacks Lands Department who normally attends LARC meetings was unable to do so when the Paulsen application was being considered. Little Salmon/Carmacks did not ask for an adjournment. It was later provided with minutes of the meeting which reflect a discussion of the First Nation’s concerns as raised in the letter. At the end of the meeting, LARC recommended that the Paulsen application be approved. Little Salmon/Carmacks continued to express opposition. It was advised that the LARC process was used for consultation but that there was no requirement under the Final Agreement to consult with Little Salmon/Carmacks in respect of agricultural land applications and consultation took place as a matter of courtesy. Argued Date 2009-11-12 Keywords Native Law. Notes (Yukon Territory) (Civil) (By Leave) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Corey Daniel Ramelson v. Her Majesty the Queen (39664)

At trial the appellant, Corey Daniel Ramelson, was found guilty of three indictable offences under ss. 172.1, 172.2 and 286.1 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 46. The appellant’s charges arose out of Project Raphael designed by the York Regional Police in Ontario — an undercover investigation that began in 2014 with the objective of reducing the demand for sexual services from juveniles in the region by targeting the “buyer side”. As part of the investigation, the police posted fake advertisements in the “escorts” section of the online classified advertising website Backpage.com. When individuals responded to the ads an undercover officer posing as an escort would disclose in the ensuing text chat that “she” was underage. Individuals who continued the chat and arranged sexual services and a price were directed to a hotel room to complete the transaction; they were then arrested and charged on their arrival.The trial judge originally dismissed the appellant’s application for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment. However, after this Court released its decision in R. v. Ahmad, 2020 SCC 11, the parties were invited to address the impact of that decision on the entrapment analysis. In a second decision the trial judge found that the police actions constituted entrapment and entered a stay of proceedings on the charges.The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the Crown’s appeal from the stay of proceedings, set aside the stay and remitted the matter to the trial judge for sentencing. The court concluded that the police investigation was a bona fide police inquiry and that the police did not require reasonable suspicion that the person responding to the ad was seeking someone underage before extending offers to commit the offence of communicating to obtain for consideration the sexual services of an underage person. In conducting the investigation, the police necessarily provided persons with the opportunity to commit the rationally connected offence of communicating with a person they believed to be underage to facilitate sexual contact with them. The court concluded that the appellant was therefore not entrapped. Argued Date 2022-05-17 Keywords Criminal law - Abuse of process - Criminal law — Abuse of process — Entrapment — Luring — Whether, in light of R. v. Ahmad, 2020 SCC 11, Project Raphael was a bona fide police inquiry — What is the proper analysis to be applied in determining whether a virtual space is sufficiently precisely and narrowly defined to meet the standard of a bona fide inquiry?. Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (As of Right) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Syed Adeel Safdar v. Her Majesty the Queen (39629)

The appellant, Syed Adeel Safdar, and two co accused who have since discontinued their appeals, were tried for a number of offences involving the abuse of the appellant’s wife. At the end of the evidence and argument on the merits of the allegations, they brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay. While the trial judge was preparing his decision on the trial proper, he heard the s. 11(b) application, reserved his decision and then granted the stay. In the trial judge’s reasons on the s. 11(b) application, he also advised that he had completed his reserved decision on the trial proper, which he did not release, but placed under seal pending the outcome of any appeal of the stay order.The Crown appealed the stay order, arguing that following the Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. K.G.K., 2020 SCC 7, the trial judge erred in including the period from the end of the evidence and argument until the release of the stay decision in his calculation of the overall delay. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the Crown’s appeal, set aside the stay order and referred the matter back to the trial judge to release his decision on the trial proper. Argued Date 2022-05-18 Keywords Constitutional law - Canadian charter (Criminal), Right to be tried within a reasonable time (s. 11(b)) - Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Right to be tried within a reasonable time — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the period of time required for applications brought pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be considered as part of verdict deliberation time and thus deducted from the calculation of net delay in an application brought under s. 11(b) of the Charter — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to correct the trial judge’s characterization of delay in setting trial dates attributable to systemic limitations on court resources as defence waiver — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to correct the trial judge’s characterization of delay attributed to the trial taking substantially longer than the trial estimate as a discrete exceptional circumstance — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to correct the trial judge’s over allocation of delay for the discrete exceptional circumstance of illness of Crown counsel — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that below the ceiling delay of 29.25 months was not markedly longer than the trial should have taken. Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (As of Right) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Jacob Charles Badger v. Her Majesty the Queen (39844)

Mr. Ray was shot after two masked men burst into his house. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, he twice identified Mr. Jacob Charles Badger as the person who had shot him. However, at trial, Mr. Ray failed to identify his assailants. The statements he had made shortly after being shot were admitted into evidence as res gestae, on the basis of the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule. The trial judge found Mr. Badger guilty of aggravated assault.A majority of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan dismissed Mr. Badger’s appeal, holding that the reasoning of the trial judge did not reveal any concerns that he ignored the inherent or situation specific frailties of the identification evidence that came in the form of the spontaneous utterances or failed to properly evaluate the reliability of the spontaneous utterances. In dissent, Kalmakoff J.A. was of the view that the trial judge did not subject the identification evidence to the careful scrutiny the law requires, an error that infected the verdict. He would have allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial. Argued Date 2022-05-16 Keywords Criminal law - Evidence, Assessment - Criminal law — Evidence — Assessment — Identification — Spontaneous utterance — Whether the trial judge erred in law in his assessment of the identification evidence . Notes (Saskatchewan) (Criminal) (As of Right) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Her Majesty the Queen v. Anthony Raul Alas (39654)

The respondent was convicted by a jury of second degree murder. At the pre charge conference, both parties had agreed that there was no air of reality to a defence of provocation, and the trial judge ruled that the defence should not be put to the jury. The respondent appealed his conviction, alleging that the trial judge had erred in failing to open the defence of provocation. A majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that provocation should have been put to the jury, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial. In dissent, MacPherson J.A. would have upheld the conviction. Argued Date 2022-04-21 Keywords Criminal law - Defences, Provocation - Criminal law — Defences — Provocation — Air of reality — Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in finding an air of reality to the defence of provocation. Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (As of Right) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Andre Aaron Gerrard v. Her Majesty the Queen (39874)

The appellant was convicted after trial before a judge alone of thirteen counts relating to various offences committed against his common law spouse. Applying the principles set out in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, the trial judge concluded that the complainant had not been motivated to lie, and that the evidence did not give rise to such an inference. The trial judge accepted the complainant’s evidence and found that it did not raise a reasonable doubt, and she rejected the appellant’s evidence and concluded that it also did not raise a reasonable doubt.A majority of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal and upheld the convictions. In the majority’s view, the trial judge did not misapply W.(D.) and she did not err in assessing the complainant’s credibility. In dissent, Bryson J.A. would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. Argued Date 2022-04-19 Keywords Criminal law - Evidence - Criminal law — Evidence — Credibility — Whether the trial judge erred in her application of the test in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 — Whether the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the Crown witness, the complainant. Notes (Nova Scotia) (Criminal) (As of Right) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Republic of India v. Surjit Singh Badesha, et al. (36981)

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Criminal Law – Extradition – Judicial review of Minister’s surrender order – Surrender order set aside on basis that Minister’s acceptance of assurances from extradition partner on health and safety in custody was not reasonable – What is the appropriate scope of review under s. 7 of the Charter for alleged deficiencies in an extradition partner’s justice system? – What is the appropriate standard of review of a Minister’s decision to accept diplomatic assurances from an extradition partner? – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 – Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18.The respondents are the uncle and mother, respectively, of the victim. They are alleged to have planned a long-distance “honour killing” in India from Canada because the victim had married a man whom the respondents considered unsuitable. The respondents are alleged to have resorted to hostility, violence and threats, failing which they hired hitmen who tracked the couple down in the state of Punjab, killed the victim and severely beat the victim’s husband. Indian authorities charged several Indian nationals connected to the murder, three of whom have been convicted, as well as the respondents.India sought the respondents’ extradition for prosecution on the offence of conspiracy to commit murder. The respondents were committed for extradition, and the Minister proceeded to issue a surrender order. The respondents, who have health issues that require medical care in custody, placed before the Minister the record of human rights violations in India’s prison system. The Minister issued a surrender order conditional on receipt of formal assurances from India, including assurances regarding death penalty, fair trial and the respondents’ health and safety in Indian custody. Argued Date 2017-03-20 Keywords Canadian charter (Criminal) - Criminal law, Extradition, Judicial review. Notes (British Columbia) (Criminal) (By Leave) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Attorney General of Quebec, et al. v. Alexandre Bissonnette (39544)

On the evening of January 29, 2017, the respondent, Mr. Bissonnette, who was 27 years old at the time, left home with two firearms and ammunition and headed to the Great Mosque of Québec. On arriving there, he fired on the worshippers who were present. He pleaded guilty on 12 counts, including six of first degree murder. Before the sentencing judge, the respondent challenged the constitutional validity of s. 745.51 of the Criminal Code, a provision under which, in the event of multiple murders, a judge may, in addition to imposing a life sentence, order parole ineligibility periods, to be served consecutively, of 25 years for each murder. The sentencing judge concluded that the section in question infringes ss. 12 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that the limits on the protected rights had not been shown to be justified in a free and democratic society. He found that the appropriate remedy would be to read in a new wording that would allow a court to impose consecutive periods of less than 25 years. The Quebec Court of Appeal reached the same conclusions as regards the constitutionality of the provision, but it was of the view that the constitutional incompatibility identified by the sentencing judge goes to the very heart of the provision and that reading in is therefore not appropriate. It accordingly declared that s. 745.51 of the Criminal Code is invalid and of no force or effect. As a consequence, it ordered a total period of parole ineligibility of 25 years in this case. Argued Date 2022-03-24 Keywords Canadian charter (Criminal) - Constitutional law, Criminal law, Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment (s. 12), Right to life, liberty and security of person (s. 7) - Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Constitutional law — Criminal law — Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment — Right to life, liberty and security of person — Accused pleading guilty on six counts of first degree murder and six counts of attempted murder — Accused challenging constitutional validity of provision allowing judge to add one 25 year period before eligibility for parole for each first degree murder — Whether s. 745.51 of Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 46, infringes s. 7 of Charter — Whether it infringes s. 12 of Charter — If so, whether it constitutes reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in free and democratic society under s. 1 of Charter - Whether 50 year period of ineligibility for parole is just and appropriate punishment in this case — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 7, 12 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 46, s. 745.51. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (By Leave) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada v. Cheyenne Sharma (39346)

In 2016, the respondent Ms. Sharma, an Indigenous woman, pled guilty to importing two kilograms of cocaine, contrary to s. 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (“CDSA”). Ms. Sharma sought a conditional sentence of imprisonment, and challenged the constitutional validity of the two year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 6(3)(a.1) of the CDSA and of ss. 742.1(b) and 742.1(c) of the Criminal Code, which make conditional sentences unavailable in certain situations. The sentencing judge found that the two year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 6(3)(a.1) of the CDSA violated s. 12 of the Charter and could not be saved under s. 1. The judge therefore declined to address the constitutional challenge to s. 742.1(b), and he dismissed the s. 15 challenge to s. 742.1(c). Ms. Sharma was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, less one month for pre sentence custody and other factors.Ms. Sharma appealed and, with the Crown’s consent, also brought a constitutional challenge to s. 742.1(e)(ii) of the Criminal Code. A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. Sections 742.1(c) and 742.1(e)(ii) were found to infringe both ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter, and the infringement could not be justified under s. 1. The majority held that the appropriate sentence would have been a conditional sentence of 24 months less one day, but as the custodial sentence had already been completed, a sentence of time served was substituted. Miller J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence of imprisonment. Argued Date 2022-03-23 Keywords Canadian charter (Criminal) - Right to life, liberty and security of person, Right to equality, Discrimination based on race, Criminal law, Sentencing - Charter of rights — Right to life, liberty and security of the person — Right to equality — Discrimination based on race — Criminal law — Sentencing — Whether ss. 742.1(c) and 742.1(e)(ii) of the Criminal Code infringe the right to equality of Indigenous offenders under s. 15 of the Charter — Whether the introduction of conditional sentences in the 1996 amendments to the Criminal Code created a “benefit” for Indigenous offenders from which Parliament cannot derogate without violating s. 15 of the Charter — Whether limiting the availability of conditional sentences for serious offences as defined by their maximum penalty is overbroad in violation of s. 7 of the Charter — Whether any breach of ss. 7 or 15 can be justified under s. 1 — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 46, ss. 742.1(c) and 742.1(e)(ii). Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).