Category: Supreme Court of Canada Page 5 of 23

Case Commented On: R v Chung, 2020 SCC 8 (Can LII)

Mindfulness, according to Jon Kabat-Zinn, the founder of MBSR (mindfulness-based stress reduction), is “the psychological process of bringing one’s attention to the internal and external experiences occurring in the present moment, which can be developed through the practice of meditation and other training.” Leaving aside how one can develop mindfulness, this concept of being “in the moment” has received much attention of late. Mindfulness is everywhere. It focuses on how we can bring more awareness to those reflexive and automatic activities we do throughout the day. This emotional and physical awareness allows us to better control the reactions we have to the stressors of life. Mindfulness also has a place in the legal world as seen in the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v Chung, 2020 SCC 8 (Can LII). In that case, the Court, in essence, applies the process of mindfulness to the two issues under consideration; whether the Crown appeal against an acquittal raises a question of law and if so, whether the trial judge erred in applying the incorrect legal test required in assessing the objective mens rea of dangerous driving.

The Adverse Impact of Mandatory Victim Surcharges and the Continuing Disappearance of Section 15 Equality Rights

By Jennifer Koshan

On January 7, 2019

In Constitutional, Criminal, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: The Adverse Impact of Mandatory Victim Surcharges and the Continuing Disappearance of Section 15 Equality Rights

Case Commented On: R v Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58 (CanLII)

It was just over one year ago that our former colleague Sheilah Martin was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada (see our tribute on ABlawg). Justice Martin has now written her first decision for the Court, R v Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58 (CanLII) which was released in December 2018. The case concerns the constitutionality of victim surcharges, which are mandatory for persons who are discharged, plead guilty, or are found guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19. Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Martin’s judgment holds that these surcharges violate section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment.

Our interest in this post is in exploring how equality infuses Justice Martin’s decision. Equality rights were not directly at issue in the case; rather, the constitutional challenge focused on section 12 as well as the guarantee of life, liberty and security of the person in section 7 of the Charter. Equality arguments were made by only two interveners (see here and here) and equality is mentioned explicitly only once in Justice Martin’s ruling (at para 28). Nevertheless, the discriminatory impact of the surcharge animates her entire judgment.

This leads us to reiterate a point we have made in previous writing (see e.g. here): section 15 of the Charter, the equality guarantee, is often overlooked in favour of other rights and freedoms as a result of the courts’ difficulties with and inconsistent treatment of equality rights. This has led to the analysis of other Charter rights – including section 7 and section 12 – that overlaps with equality, which muddies the content of these other rights. In turn, the lack of a robust equality jurisprudence perpetuates the tendency of parties and courts to avoid section 15. This is not necessarily a problem when other rights can be successfully invoked, as in this case, but it can be a problem when a successful claim depends on equality rights.

The Great Divide on Standard of Review in Canadian Administrative Law

By Shaun Fluker

On July 23, 2018

In Administrative Law, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: The Great Divide on Standard of Review in Canadian Administrative Law

Case Commented On: Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 SCC 31 (CanLII)

In an unusual move earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Canada announced it would consider the nature and scope of judicial review in a trilogy of upcoming appeals in Bell Canada, Vavilov, and National Football League, and specifically invited the parties to make submissions on standard of review. This open invitation to revisit the standard of review framework established by Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 did not come as a surprise to followers of Canadian administrative law who have observed a divide form amongst the current members of the Supreme Court (only one of whom – Justice Abella – was sitting when Dunsmuir was argued) on how to select the standard of review. This division is fully apparent in Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 SCC 31 and is the subject of this post. Elysa Darling and Drew Lafond have recently analyzed the substance of the merits in Canadian Human Rights Commission on ABlawg here, and my post will focus only on the standard of review analysis by the Court in the case.

A Fine Balance: Sentencing Suter in the Supreme Court of Canada

By Lisa Silver

On July 19, 2018

In Criminal, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Lisa Ann Silver

PDF Version: A Fine Balance: Sentencing Suter in the Supreme Court of Canada

Case Commented On: R v Suter, 2018 SCC 34

Sentencing, Chief Justice Lamer tells us in R v M (CA), 1996 CanLII 230, [1996] 1 SCR 500, at paragraph 91, is “a delicate art which attempts to balance carefully the societal goals of sentencing against the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the circumstances of the offence, while at all times taking into account the needs and current conditions of and in the community.” This sentiment neatly encapsulates all that is sentencing: an ephemeral yet earthy task in which the sentencing judge envelopes themself in a venture engaging both heart and mind. It is a “delicate” process, not heavy-handed, which requires a deft understanding of the human condition within the clarity of legal rules and principles. It is an art, not a science, meaning it is not a base computation or a tallying up of factors given pre-determined weight. Art also suggests artistic freedom and the discretionary nature we nurture in the sentencing process. But it is a determination statutorily mandated with well-defined rules and principles. There is wriggle room but just as we must stay within our lanes while driving, the sentencing judge must not over-correct or act erratically in imposing sentence. There are parameters. Some are, as indicated, statutory, as the “sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender” (s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code). Other parameters arise from the profound sense of community that envelopes us when a fellow member breaks our laws – the laws that reflect our fundamental values. We feel the impact of rule-breakers, but we also feel their angst. We all know, to some degree, we too could be similarly situated, both as victim or offender. It is at this tipping point where the sentencing judge’s task becomes even more delicate as it searches for the fair and just balancing of all which is required to impose a fit and appropriate sentence tailored to the circumstances of the offence and the background of the offender. It is this delicate or fine balancing which is at the core of the myriad of issues arising in the newest Supreme Court sentencing decision in R v Suter, 2018 SCC 34.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s Approach to the Charter’s Equality Guarantee in its Pay Equity Decisions

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On July 12, 2018

In Human Rights, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: The Supreme Court of Canada’s Approach to the Charter’s Equality Guarantee in its Pay Equity Decisions

Case Commented On: Quebec (Attorney General) v. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux, 2018 SCC 17 (CanLII); Centrale des syndicats du Québec v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2018 SCC 18 (CanLII)

The latest decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada on s 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are the two companion pay equity decisions rendered May 24, 2018 in Quebec (Attorney General) v. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux, 2018 SCC 17 (CanLII) (APP) and Centrale des syndicats du Québec v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2018 SCC 18 (CanLII) (CSQ). The analysis of the Charter’s s 15(1) prohibition of discrimination on the ground of sex and s 15(2) protection of ameliorative programs from charges of reverse discrimination – the two-case, five-judgment spanning focus of this post – reveals a seriously fractured court reminiscent of the court that decided the so-called “equality trilogy” of the mid-1990s. It reveals the lack of consensus at the end of Beverley McLachlin’s term as Chief Justice and after a significant turnover in members in the past four years, with the three most recently appointed judges who heard these appeals dissenting. The issues this post addresses – and we address them only briefly in this forum – are: (1) What is the current legal test for discerning a breach of s 15? (2) What are the contentious points on which the current justices disagree? And (3) What might these pay equity decisions mean for the future of equality law in general? Unfortunately, there is enough disagreement about the answers to the first two questions that this lengthy post will only discuss the relevant law and not go into detail on its application to the facts in this case (except in the use of comparators).

An earlier ABlawg post by Jennifer Koshan, The Supreme Court of Canada’s Pay Equity Decisions: A Call to Action for Alberta?, explores the implications of these two decisions for the Alberta government’s pay equity obligations. The context and facts of both decisions are detailed in that post, but a brief recap to set the stage for the s 15 analysis is in order.

Category: Supreme Court of Canada Page 5 of 23

Being in the Moment: An Analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in R v Chung

The Adverse Impact of Mandatory Victim Surcharges and the Continuing Disappearance of Section 15 Equality Rights

The Great Divide on Standard of Review in Canadian Administrative Law

A Fine Balance: Sentencing Suter in the Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada’s Approach to the Charter’s Equality Guarantee in its Pay Equity Decisions