Supreme Court of Canada Hearings

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).

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).

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).

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).

Following a trial by jury, the respondent, Craig Pope, was convicted of second degree murder. A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed Mr. Pope’s appeal from conviction and ordered a new trial. In its view, the trial judge erred by failing to properly instruct the jury on the included offence of manslaughter. The majority was of the view that the difference between murder and manslaughter, particularly regarding the question of intent, was not explained with sufficient clarity. In dissent, Goodridge J.A. would have dismissed the appeal. First, he rejected the respondent’s argument that the decision tree prepared by the trial judge for the jury failed to define the included offence of manslaughter. Second, he rejected the argument that the example of manslaughter given to the jury by the trial judge in response to a question was misleading. Finally, he disagreed that the jury charge failed to alert the jury or provide a limiting instruction that the respondent’s flight from the scene was of no probative value in choosing between second degree murder and manslaughter. Argued Date 2022-03-21 Keywords Criminal law - Charge to jury - Criminal law — Charge to jury — Second degree murder — Lesser and included offence of manslaughter — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by finding that the position taken by counsel at trial is not a factor to be considered in assessing the trial judge’s instructions to the jury — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by finding that the trial judge’s jury instructions, including the decision tree, were deficient in relation to the elements of manslaughter — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by finding the trial judge’s answer to the jury’s question, and the example of manslaughter given to the jury, was deficient — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by overturning the second degree murder conviction and ordering a new trial. Notes (Newfoundland & Labrador) (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).

The respondent was charged with assault, aggravated assault, uttering a threat, and damage to property. On June 5, 2018, the Crown elected to proceed summarily on three hybrid offences, and the charge of aggravated assault was electable as to mode of trial. On the same date, the respondent’s counsel stated that the election was trial in the Provincial Court. The trial judge found the respondent guilty. The respondent appealed his convictions on the basis that his trial counsel had failed to obtain his informed instructions regarding his election as to the mode of his trial. He alleged that he had not been informed that he had a right to elect the mode of trial, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. A majority of the Court of Appeal for Newfoundland and Labrador allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial. In dissent, Hoegg J.A. would have dismissed the appeal. Argued Date 2022-03-18 Keywords Criminal law - Procedure - Criminal law — Procedure — Trial fairness — Election of mode of trial — Accused alleging he was not informed of his right to elect mode of trial — Whether appellate court can overturn trial verdict on procedural fairness grounds alone without proof of prejudice. Notes (Newfoundland & Labrador) (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).

In the Court of Québec, the respondent, Daniel Brunelle, was convicted of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. The offences arose out of an episode of road rage. The trial judge found that the respondent had not acted in self defence. With regard to the second condition for self defence, she did not believe the respondent’s claim that he had used force for the purpose of defending himself. She found that he had instead retaliated and taken revenge.The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the guilty verdicts and ordered a new trial. In the majority’s view, the trial judge had erred in analyzing the second condition for self defence by finding that the accused had sought to take revenge and had done more than defend himself. The judge had not taken account of how quickly everything happened and had not considered all the evidence. Bachand J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal on the basis that there was no reason to intervene. In his view, the issue was whether the trial judge’s finding that the respondent had acted out of vengeance was sufficiently supported by the evidence and involved no palpable and overriding error. He found that this was the case. Argued Date 2022-03-15 Keywords Criminal law - Appeals, Evidence, Unreasonable verdict, Defences, Self-defence - Criminal law — Appeals — Evidence — Unreasonable verdict — Defence — Self defence — Whether majority erred in law in holding that verdict was unreasonable even though trial judge’s findings of fact were supported by evidence. Notes (Quebec) (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).

In June 2008, Roger Matern consulted the appellant, Mitra Javanmardi, a naturopath. Ms. Javanmardi administered an intraveous injection treatment. Mr. Matern died not long after the treatment. Ms. Javanmardi was charged, in connection with his death, with criminal negligence causing death and manslaughter.The Court of Québec found on the basis of the evidence that the cause of Mr. Matern’s death was the injection administered by Ms. Javanmardi. But it acquitted her on both counts on the basis that, amoung other things, Ms. Javanmardi’s conduct had not involved a marked departure and her actions had not been objectively dangerous.The Court of Appeal was of the opinion that errors of law had been made at trial. It found that all the essential elements of the offence of manslaughter had been established beyond a reasonable doubt and found Ms. Javanmardi guilty on that count. As for the count of criminal negligence, it found that a reassessment of the whole of the evidence was necessary and ordered a new trial for that purpose. Argued Date 2019-05-15 Keywords Criminal law - Criminal law - Manslaughter - Criminal negligence causing death - Naturopath charged with manslaughter of patient and with causing patient’s death by criminal negligence - Patient dying as result of endotoxic shock caused by bacterium in substance injected into him by naturopath during treatment - Whether ss. 234 and 236 of Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 46, infringe rights guaranteed by ss. 6, 7 and 15 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, if so, whether infringements justified under s. 1 of Charter - Whether Court of Appeal made legal errors. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (As of Right / By Leave) (Publication ban in case) (Sealing order) (Certain information not available to the public) 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).

Charter of Rights - Constitutional law - Right to life, liberty and security of person - Fundamental justice - Fair hearing - Immigration law - Evidence - Security certificate issued against Mohamed Harkat stating that he is inadmissible to Canada on grounds of security - Whether sections 77(2), 78, 83(1)(c) to (e), 83(1)(h), 83(1)(i), 85.4(2) and 85.5(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act breach section 7 of the Charter and if so, whether the provisions are justified under s. 1 of the Charter - Whether the designated judge’s conclusion that there was no abuse of process and no violation of s. 7 of the Charter should be restored - Whether the designated judge properly assessed the evidence - Whether CSIS informers in security certificate proceedings benefit from a class privilege Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 7 - Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, ss. 77(2), 78, 83(1)(c) to (e), 83(1)(h), 83(1)(i), 85.4(2) and 85.5(b).In 2008, a security certificate naming Mohamed Harkat as a person inadmissible to Canada on grounds of national security was signed by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It is alleged that Mr. Harkat is inadmissible on security grounds for engaging in terrorism, being a danger to the security of Canada, and being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in terrorism. Mr. Harkat challenged the constitutionality of the security certificate regime, but it was upheld by the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. The Federal Court also held that a class privilege applied to CSIS human sources, which decision was overturned by the Federal Court of Appeal. The Federal Court was of the view that the destruction by CSIS of originals of conversations did not breach Mr. Harkat’s s. 7 Charter rights, but the Federal Court of Appeal disagreed and ordered the exclusion of the evidence derived from these originals. Finally, the Federal Court upheld the reasonableness of the security certificate, but the Federal Court of Appeal overturned this decision in view of its above mentioned decision to exclude evidence, sending the matter back to the designated judge for a new determination as to the reasonableness of the certificate. Argued Date 2013-10-10 Keywords Canadian charter - civil - Constitutional law, Right to life, liberty and security of person, Fundamental justice (s. 7), Immigration Law, Evidence, Remedy, Standard of review. Notes (Federal Court) (Civil) (By Leave) (Sealing order) 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).

Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law – Charge to jury – Right to silence – Consideration of s. 4(6) of the Canada Evidence Act - Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the trial judge was not required to specifically caution the jury on the improper use of the Applicant’s decision not to testify at trial – Charter of Rights and Freedoms ss. 7, 11(c) and 11(d).The Applicant and his co-accused, Peter Solty, were charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the Government of Canada and one count of defrauding the Government of Canada of about $3.25 million. The Crown alleged that both accused participated in a fraudulent scheme involving the fictitious sale of heavy equipment to generate harmonized Sales Tax (“HST”) that was then not remitted to the federal government as required. The fraudulent nature of the scheme was never challenged. The involvement of the applicant and Mr. Solty in the scheme was also conceded. The question for the jury was whether either or both accused were aware of the fraudulent nature of the scheme. The applicant did not testify. The applicant was convicted and sentenced and his appeals were dismissed. Argued Date 2011-11-08 Keywords Criminal law. 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).