1-year Mandatory Minimum for Sexual Interference Struck Down by ONCA

Section 12 of the Charter provides, “Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.”

A sentence will violate section 12 where it is grossly disproportionate to a fit punishment in the circumstances.  

A sentence is at greater risk of being grossly disproportionate where the offence captures a wide range of conduct and circumstances. 

See R v Forcillo, 2018 ONCA 402 (CanLII).

Sexual interference is such an offence as it captures a broad range of conduct from a touch “to the worst forms of human degradation.” 

R v Sandercock, 1985 ABCA 218 (CanLII) at para 11.

The issue of the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum for the indictable offence of sexual interference (s. 151(a) of the Criminal Code) has recently been considered by six courts of appeal across the country [FN]:

1.       the Quebec Court of Appeal in Caron Barrette c. R., 2018 QCCA 516, 46 C.R. (7th) 400;
2.      the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in R. v. Hood, 2018 NSCA 18, 409 C.R.R. (2d) 70;
3.      the Manitoba Court of Appeal in R. v. JED, 2018 MBCA 123, 368 C.C.C. (3d) 212;
4.      the British Columbia Court of Appeal in R. v. Scofield, 2019 BCCA 3, 52 C.R. (7th) 379;
5.      the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Ford, 2019 ABCA 87, 371 C.C.C. (3d) 250; and
6.      the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. B.J.T., 2019 ONCA 694 (September 6, 2019).

In all six cases, the courts found that the one-year mandatory minimum sentence required by s. 151 of the Criminal Code contravened s. 12 of the Charter, being cruel and unusual punishment. 

Written by Stuart O’Connell, O’Connell Law Group.
[FN] The section 151 offence allows the Crown to elect to proceed by summary conviction or by indictment. The current mandatory minimum sentence for the offence when the Crown proceeds summarily is 90 days. In R. v. Drumonde, 2019 ONSC 1005, Schreck J. struck down the mandatory minimum for the summary conviction offence.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Warrantless Drug Searches (Section 11(7) of the CDSA)

Were there exigent circumstances? Did the exigent circumstances render it impracticable to obtain a warrant? Section 11(7)   of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states: (7) A peace officer may exercise any of the powers described in subsection (1), (5) or (6) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain one. Subsection (1)   of s. 11 empowers a peace officer to conduct a warranted search of a place for, inter alia , a controlled substance and to seize it. Section 11(7), therefore, empowers a peace officer to conduct a warrantless search for a controlled substance, so long as conditions for obtaining a warrant existed and exigent circumstances made it impracticable for the officer to obtain a warrant. For a warrantless entry into a residence to satisfy section 11(7) , the Crown must show that the entry was compelled by urgency, calling for immediate police action to prese
Read more

Night time Execution of a Search Warrant

Warrants Authorized under the Criminal Code The Criminal Code requires that if a warrant is to be executed at night (after 9:00 p.m., see Criminal Code , s. 2), the night time execution must be justified under the terms of s. 488 of the Criminal Code .    Section 488 of the Criminal Code is not made applicable to warrants and telewarrants issued under the authority of section 11 of the CDSA, which may be executed “at any time”.  R. v. Shivrattan, 2017 ONCA 23; R. v. Saunders , 2003 NLCA 63, 181 C.C.C. (3d) 268, at paras. 27, 31-32, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 SCC 70, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 505; R. v. Dueck , 2005 BCCA 448, 200 C.C.C. (3d) 378, at paras. 17-21; and R. v. Newell , [2007] O.J. No. 2348, at para. 47 (Ont. S.C.). Warrants Authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Unlike warrants issued under the Criminal Code , there is no statutory presumption that warrants issued under s. 11 of the CDSA are to be executed before 9:00 p.m. unless night t
Read more

Arrested at Home: Feeney Warrants

At common law, where the police had reasonable grounds to arrest a suspect and reasonable grounds to believe a suspect was in a private dwelling-house, they were entitled to enter and arrest the suspect, with or without an arrest warrant, if proper announcement was made. See R. v. Landry , 1986 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145 , and Eccles v. Bourque et al. , 1974 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739 ). However, in the 1997 decision of R. v. Feeney , the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the common law violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that generally, warrantless arrests within private dwellings were prohibited.  Absent exigent circumstances or cases of hot pursuit, an entry warrant would be required to enter a dwelling house to make an arrest.    R. v. Feeney , 1997 CanLII 342 (SCC), at paras. 44-51.  Parliament responded by enacting sections 529-529.5 of the Criminal Code , which, among other things, creates two distinct authorizatio
Read more