IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE ALBERTA COURT OF APPEAL) - and -
|
|
- Shonda Brooks
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Court File No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE ALBERTA COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: B E T W E E N : JEREMY JAMES PEERS - and - Applicant (Appellant) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (ALBERTA SECURITIES COMMISSION) Respondent (Respondent) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC, CANADIAN CONSTITUTION FOUNDATION, ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION, BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION AND CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION Interveners Court File No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE ALBERTA COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: B E T W E E RONALD JAMES AITKENS - and - ALBERTA SECURITIES COMMISSION - and - Applicant (Appellant) Respondent (Respondent) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, CANADIAN CONSTITUTION FOUNDATION AND ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION Interveners FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER, CANADIAN CONSTITUTION FOUNDATION (Pursuant to Rules 37 and 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada)
2 McCarthy Tetrault Tétrault LLP Suite 5300, Toronto Dominion Bank Tower Toronto ON M5K 1E6 Darryl Cruz Brandon Kain Byron Shaw Atrisha Lewis Tel: (416) Fax: (416) Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Constitution Foundation Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP 160 Elgin Street Suite 2000 Ottawa ON KIP K1P 1C3 Jeff Beedell Tel: (613) Fax: (613) Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Constitution Foundation
3 ORIGINAL TO: THE REGISTRAR Supreme Court of Canada 301 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A On 0J1 COPIES TO: BERESH ALONEISSI O'NEILL HURLEY O'KEEFE MILLSAP 300 MacLean Block Street Edmonton, AB T5J 1J4 Steve Fix Nathan J. Whitling Alex Millman Tel: (780) Fax: (780) Counsel for the Appellant, Jeremy James Peers ALBERTA SECURITIES COMMISSION 600, 250 5th Street S.W. Calgary, AB T2P OR4 0R4 Don Young Lorenz Berner Tel: (403) Fax: (403) Counsel for the Respondent, Her Majesty the Queen (Alberta Securities Commission) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA 4th Floor, Bowker Building th Street Edmonton, AB T5K 2E8 Robert J. Normey Tel: (780) Fax: (780) Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of Alberta SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP 340 Gilmour Street Suite 100 Ottawa, ON K2P OR3 0R3 Marie-France Major Tel: (613) Ext. 102 Fax: (613) Ottawa Agent for the Appellant, Jeremy James Peers GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP Elgin Street Ottawa, ON K1P 1C3 D. Lynne Watt Tel: (613) Fax: (613) Ottawa Agent for the Respondent, Her Majesty the Queen (Alberta Securities Commission) GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP Elgin Street Ottawa, ON K1P 1C3 D. Lynne Watt Tel: (613) Fax: (613) Ottawa Agent for the Intervener, Attorney General of Alberta
4 ii 11 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Suite 3400, Box King Street West Toronto, ON M5X 1K6 Marianne Zoric Jeanette Gevikoglu Tel: (416) Fax: (416) Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of Canada ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO 720 Bay Street 4th 4 Floor Toronto, ON M7A 2S9 Matthew Horner Jennifer Luong Tel: (416) Fax: (416) matthew.horner@ontario.ca Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of Ontario ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION 20 Queen Street West 22hd nd Floor Toronto, ON M5H 3S8 Hugh Craig Tel: (416) Fax: (416) hcraig@osc.gov.on.ca Counsel for the Intervener, Ontario Securities Commission ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA 50 O'Connor O Connor Street Suite 500, Room 556 Ottawa, ON 1(113 K1P 6L2 Robert J. Frater, Q.C. Tel: (613) Fax: (613) robert.frater@justice.gc.ca Ottawa Agent for the Intervener, Attorney General of Canada BURKE-ROBERTSON 441 MacLaren Street Suite 200 Ottawa, ON K2P H3 Robert E. Houston, Q.C. Tel: (613) Fax: (613) rhouston@burkerobertson.com Ottawa Agent for the Intervener, Attorney General of Ontario CONWAY BAXTER WILSON LLP Roosevelt Avenue Ottawa, ON K2A 3X9 Conn Colin S. Baxter Tel: (613) Fax (613) cbaxter@conway.pro Ottawa Agent for the Intervener, Ontario Securities Commission
5 iii 111 BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION Stockwoods LLP TD North Tower, Toronto-Dominion Centre 77 King Street West, Suite 4130 Toronto, ON M5K H1 Gerald Chan Nader R. Hasan Tel: (416) Fax: (416) POWER LAW 130 Albert Street Suite 1103 Ottawa, ON K1P 5G4 David Taylor Tel: (613) Fax: (613) Ottawa Agent for the Intervener, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association Counsel for the Intervener, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC Procureur general général du Quebec Québec 1200, Route de l'eglise, l Église, 2eme 2ème etage étage Quebec, Québec, Quebec G1V 4M1 Sylvain Leboeuf Tel: (418) Ext Fax: (418) sylvain.leboeuf@justice.gouv.qc.ca Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of Quebec GOLDBLATT PARTNERS LLP Box Dundas Street West Toronto, ON MSG M5G 2G8 Marlys A. Edwardh Adriel Weaver Tel: (416) Fax: (416) medwardh@goldplattpartners.com Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Civil Liberties Association NOEL & ASSOCIES ASSOCIÉS 111, rue Champlain Gatineau, Quebec J8X 3R1 Pierre Landry Tel: (819) Fax: (819) p.landry@noelassocies.com Ottawa Agent for the Intervener, Attorney General of Quebec GOLDBLATT PARTNERS LLP Metcalfe Street Ottawa, ON K1P 5L4 Colleen Bauman Tel: (613) Fax: (613) cbauman@goldblattpartners.com Ottawa Agent for the Intervener, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
6 iv WALSH LLP th Avenue S.W. Calgary, AB T2P 4A3 Brendan Myers Miller Tel: (403) Fax: (403) Counsel for the Appellant, Ronald James Aitkens SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP 340 Gilmour Street, Suite 100 Ottawa, ON K2P OR3 0R3 Marie-France Major Tel: (613) Fax: (613) Ottawa Agent for the Appellant, Ronald James Aitkens
7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Part I Overview.. 1 Introduction 1 Statement of Facts.. 2 Part II Statement of Position. 2 Part III Statement of Argument 3 1. Imprisonment and Larges Fines May Attract Section 11 (f) Protection 3 2. The Impact on Liberty and Security Should be Considered in Determining 7 Whether a Punishment is More Severe than Five Years' Years Imprisonment... Part IV Submissions Concerning Costs Part V Order Sought. 10 Part VI Table of Authorities. 11 Part VII Legislative Enactments.. 13
8 1 PART I - OVERVIEW Introduction 1. The Canadian Constitutional Foundation ("CCF") ( CCF ) submits that an offence carrying a maximum punishment of a prison term less than five years combined with a large fine may engage the right to a jury trial under s. 11(f) of the Charter. In determining whether a punishment is more severe than five years' years imprisonment, regard should be had to the K.R.J. 1 framework, particularly the impact on the liberty and security interests of offenders from the maximum punishment authorized by the offence. 2. The inclusion of offences such as s. 194(1) of the Securities Act2 2 within the ambit of s. 11(f) follows from the purposive approach to rights interpretation laid down in Big M3 M 3 and Southam.4 4 Had the Charter s Charter's drafters intended to restrict s. 11(f) to offences with at least five years' years imprisonment or sanctions such as corporal punishment, banishment, forced labour or citizenship revocation, they would have drafted s. 11(f) accordingly. Instead, they used the broad term "punishment", punishment, with reference to a five year prison term severity benchmark. The right to a jury trial for offences such as s. 194(1) of the Securities Act is also supported by the historical origins of s. 11(f), which is rooted in the protection against tyranny from oppressive laws and their enforcement and the jury's jury s central role in the Canadian justice system. It is further supported by the generous approach to rights interpretation, particularly since the opening words of s. 11 have been construed to limit the application of the enumerated rights that follow. Finally, it is supported by the meaning and purpose of rights with which s. 11(f) is associated, including the protection against double jeopardy in s. 11(h) and the lesser punishment protection in s. 11(i). 3. The CCF submits that in considering whether s. 11(f) is engaged, Courts should consider the K.R.J. framework, particularly the impact on the liberty and security interests of accused persons who face the maximum punishment for the offence in question. 1 R. v. KR.J., K.R.J., 2016 SCC 31 [K.R.J.]. [KR.J.]. 2 Securities Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. S-4, s. 194(1). 3 R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295 [Big M]. 4 Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145 [Southam].
9 2 Statement of Facts 4. The appellants were charged with offences under the Alberta Securities Act. Section 194(1) of the Securities Act provides that "[a] [a] person or company that contravenes Alberta securities laws is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine of not more than $ or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 5 years less a day, or to both."5 both The appellants argued that the potential punishment of five years less one day plus a $5 million fine in s. 194 amounts to a "more more severe punishment" punishment attracting s. 11(f) protection. Section 11 provides any person charged with an offence with the right (h) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment; 6. A majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal rejected the appellants' appellants submission, holding that an offence with a maximum penalty of "five five years less one day" day does not become a "more more severe punishment" punishment merely because a "collateral collateral consequence" consequence such as a fine is authorized. The majority held open the possibility that other sanctions such as "corporal corporal punishment, banishment from the community, forced labour or revocation of citizenship" citizenship could engage s. 11(f) O'Ferrall O Ferrall J. disagreed with the majority's majority s reasoning, but nonetheless concurred in the result on the basis that the appellants had requested a stay of proceedings when the appropriate remedy was a trial by jury On November 17, 2016, the Court granted CCF's CCF s motion to intervene. PART II - STATEMENT OF POSITION 9. The CCF's CCF s position is that an offence with a maximum punishment of less than five years' years imprisonment combined with a large fine may engage the right to a jury trial under s. 11(f). In determining whether s. 11(f) is engaged, the Court should look to the K.R..I. K.R.J. framework and, in 5 Securities Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. S-4, s. 194(1) 6 R. v. Peers, 2015 ABCA 407, at Ibid., O'Ferrall O Ferrall J., concurring in the result.
10 3 particular, the impact on the liberty and security interests of offenders from the maximum punishment for the offence in question. PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT 1. Imprisonment and Large Fines May Attract Section 11(f) Protection 10. Section 11(f), like all Charter rights, should be interpreted using the purposive approach to rights interpretation. The purpose of s. 11(f)... is to be sought by reference to the character and the larger objects of the Charter itself, to the language chosen to articulate the specific right or freedom, to the historical origins of the concepts enshrined, and where applicable, to the meaning and purpose of the other specific rights and freedoms with which it is associated within the text of the Charter. The interpretation should be, as the judgment in Southam emphasizes, a generous rather than a legalistic one, aimed at fulfilling the purpose of the guarantee and securing for individuals the full benefit of the Charter s Charter's protection. At the same time it is important not to overshoot the actual purpose of the right or freedom in question, but to recall that the Charter was not enacted in a vacuum, and must therefore, as this Court's decision in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357, illustrates, be placed in its proper linguistic, philosophic and historical contexts A purposive approach compels the conclusion that s. 11(f) captures offences with a maximum punishment of imprisonment less than five years combined with large fines. 12. First, the language of s. 11(f) is comparative; the sole question being whether the maximum punishment for the offence in question is more severe than five years' years imprisonment. Had the Charter s Charter's drafters intended to restrict s. 11(f) to offences carrying a maximum punishment of five years' years imprisonment or specific sanctions such as the examples given by the Court of Appeal, they would drafted the provision accordingly. Instead, they used the broad term "punishment", punishment, with reference to the severity benchmark of five years' years imprisonment. As this Court stated in Lee:... the language of s. 11(f) is clear and unambiguous. The only qualifications on the right to the benefit of a jury trial under the section are that the maximum punishment for the offence be five years imprisonment or a more severe punishment and that it 8 Big M, supra note 3 at p. 344.
11 4 not be available in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal Second, this interpretation is consistent with other Charter rights with which s. 11(f) is associated. As this Court held in KR.J., K.R.J., harmony within s. 11 is desirable.' This Court has consistently interpreted the term "punishment" punishment broadly, to include fines and other sanctions. In Wigglesworth, this Court held that the protection against double jeopardy in s. 11(h) may be triggered not only by criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings, but non-criminal proceedings that result in a sanction with "true true penal consequences, consequences", including "imprisonment imprisonment or a fine by which its magnitude would appear to be imposed for the purpose of redressing the wrong done to society at large rather than to the maintenance of internal discipline within the limited sphere of activity." activity. Wilson J. quoted Professor Stuart approvingly, who observed that "other other punitive forms of disciplinary measures, such as fines or imprisonment, are indistinguishable from criminal punishment and should surely fall within the protection of s. 11(h)."" 11(h). 15. In Shubley, this Court held that a sanction imposed in an internal prison disciplinary proceeding did not engage s. 11(h), in part because the possible sanctions involved neither punitive fines nor imprisonment, recognizing that fines may constitute "punishment" punishment within the meaning of s In Rodgers, this Court held that imprisonment and heavy fines are "true true penal consequences" consequences and that punishment was not limited to these two sanctions In K.R..I., K.R.J., this Court held that an order under s. 161(1) of the Criminal Code empowering sentencing judges to prohibit sexual offenders from having any contact with a person under 16 9 R. v. Lee, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1384, at p [Lee], emphasis added K.R.J. supra note 1, at " R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541, at p. 561 [Wigglesworth], emphasis added. 12 R. v. Shubley, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 3, at p. 23 [Shubley] R. v. Rodgers, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 554 at 59 [Rodgers]. See also: Canada (Attorney General) v. Whaling, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 392, at 46.
12 5 years of age or from using the Internet or other digital networks constituted "punishment" punishment within the meaning of s. 11(i) of the Charter Third, the opening words of s. 11 have been given a "somewhat somewhat narrow definition definition" so as to limit application of the enumerated rights that follow. Section 11 only applies to persons "prosecuted prosecuted by the State for offences involving punitive sanctions, i.e. criminal, quasi-criminal and regulatory offences, either federally or provincially enacted."15 enacted. Given the limitations imposed on s. 11 as a whole, a "generous generous rather than legalistic legalistic" interpretation requires offences authorizing less than five years' years imprisonment combined with large fines be included within s. 11W's 11(f) s ambit. As Chan-on Charron J. held in Rodgers, the Wigglesworth test "applies applies to determine whether s. 11 is triggered but does not purport to restrict the meaning of punishment 'punishment'..." Fourth, the historical origins of the concepts enshrined in s. 11(f) militate in favour of provisions such as s. 194(1) of the Securities Act attracting the right to a jury trial. The historical and continued importance of jury trials as a bulwark against tyranny has been repeatedly recognized. In R. v. Sherrat, this Court held as follows:... Most of the early rationales for the use of the jury are as compelling today as they were centuries ago while other, more modern, rationales have developed... developed. The jury, through its collective decision making, is an excellent fact finder; due to its representative character, it acts as the conscience of the community; the jury can act as the final bulwark against oppressive laws or their enforcement; it provides a means whereby the public increases its knowledge of the criminal justice system and it increases, through the involvement of the public, societal trust in the system as a whole. The importance of the jury in our system of criminal justice past and present is eloquently described by Blackstone in his Commentaries... Commentaries So that the liberties of England cannot but subsist so long as this palladium remains sacred and inviolate; not only from all open attacks, (which none will be so hardy as to make,) but also from all secret machinations which may sap and undermine it; by introducing new and arbitrary methods of trial,... And, however convenient these may appear at first, (as doubtless KR..I., K.R.J., supra note 1, at Goodwin v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2015] 3 S.C.R. 250, at 40, citing Wigglesworth, supra note 11 at p. 554; and Guindon v. Canada, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 3, at Rodgers, supra note 13 at 59.
13 6 all arbitrary powers, well executed, are the most convenient,) yet let it be again remembered that delays and little inconveniences in the forms of justice are the price that all free nations must pay for their liberty in more substantial matters; that these inroads upon this sacred bulwark of the nation are fundamentally opposite to the spirit of our constitution;... Section 11(f) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines the right to trial by jury...17 jury 20. In R. v. Lee, this Court quoted R. v. Bryant with approval: This history demonstrates that the right of trial by jury is not only an essential part of our criminal justice system but also is an important constitutional guarantee of the rights of the individual in our democratic society. In all common law countries it has, for this reason, been treated as almost sacrosanct and has been interfered with only to a minimal extent.... the reality is that the right to a jury trial was guaranteed in the Charter as recently as The inescapable inference would seem to be that the right to a jury trial is viewed as just as important a protection for the accused today As Blair J.A. wrote in R. v. Bryant: Now that the right of jury trial is entrenched in our Constitution it is preserved both from open attack or subtle erosion. The importance of maintaining this constitutional protection inviolate was expressed by Blackstone in words which Lord Devlin, supra, at p. 165, said were "still still after two centuries as fresh and meaningful as when they were written"...19 written 22. As Gonthier J. wrote in R. v. Bain: Jury trials are a central element of Anglo-American criminal law. Sometimes lauded, sometimes vilified, trial by jury has withstood the test of time and has acquired such an importance that it has been entrenched in our Constitution through s. 11(f) of the Charter Juries have and continue to play an important role in the civil justice system as well. In Ontario, the right to a trial by jury in a civil case is a "substantive substantive right" right and one that "should should not R v. Sherratt, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 509, at pp , emphasis added, footnotes omitted in original Lee, supra note 9, at p. 1401, emphasis added R. v. Bryant, 1984 CanLII 2026 (Ont. C.A.), at 31, emphasis added R. v. Bain, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 91, at p. 112, Gonthier J., dissenting on other grounds, emphasis added.
14 7 be interfered with without just cause or cogent reasons. reasons".21 A party may serve a jury notice at any time, except in specific enumerated circumstances.22 A party wishing to set aside a jury notice must bring a motion and bears a heavy onus of establishing that a jury trial is not appropriate In Alberta, jury trials are allowed in civil cases where the amount in dispute exceeds $10,000. A party who wants a jury trial need only bring an application pursuant to s. 17 of the Jury Act.24 An applicant who meets the criteria in s. 17(1)(b) of the Jury Act has a prima facie right to a civil jury tria1,25 trial, which is "not not to be removed lightly. lightly" In light of the case law recognizing the importance of juries in both criminal and civil cases, an interpretation of s. 11(f) that protects the right to a jury trial for offences involving imprisonment in combination with substantial fines ought to be preferred. 2. The Impact on Liberty and Security Should be Considered in Determining Whether a Punishment is More Severe than Five Years' Years Imprisonment 26. It is difficult to establish a bright dividing line between offences which attract s. 11(f) protection and those that do not. In determining whether a punishment is "more more severe" severe than five years' years imprisonment, Courts should be guided by the KR.J. K.R.J. framework. 27. In KR.J., K.R.J., this Court modified the previous two-part test from Rodgers27 for determining whether a measure is "punishment" punishment as follows:... a measure constitutes punishment if (1) it is a consequence of conviction that forms part of the arsenal of sanctions to which an accused may be liable in respect of a particular offence, and either (2) it is imposed in furtherance of the purpose Kempf v. Nguyen, 2015 ONCA 114, at 43 [Kempf]. [KemPA Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 108(1); Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rule Kempf, supra note 21, at Jury Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. J-3, s. 17(1)(b); Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg , s Redshaw v. Fairfield, 2007 CarswellAlta 631 (Q.B.), at Shipanoff v. Landry, 2008 ABQB 212, at 14; Couillard v. Smoky River (Municipal District No. 30), [1980] A.J. No. 163 (Alta. C.A.) Supra note 13.
15 8 and principles of sentencing, or (3) it has a significant impact on an offender's offender s liberty or security interests In determining whether a punishment is more severe than five years in jail, Courts should have regard to the impact on the liberty and security interests of offenders. 29. CCF acknowledges that the narrow issue in K.R.J. was whether a particular sanction constituted "punishment" punishment and that the s. 11(f) inquiry requires a comparative analysis between the sanction authorized and five years' years imprisonment. Nonetheless, the third K.R.J. factor is helpful. As this Court held in KR.J: K.R.J.:... a consideration of the impact of a sanction is consistent with this Court's Court s jurisprudence. Since the early days of the Charter, this Court has always looked to both purposes and effects when considering the constitutionality of laws Just as accounting for a sanction's sanction s impact assists in identifying the "lesser lesser punishment" punishment to which an accused is entitled for the purposes of s. 11(i), accounting for a sanction's sanction s impact on offenders assists in identifying whether a punishment is "more more severe" severe than five years' years imprisonment under s. 11(f). As this Court held in KR.. K.R.J., I., undue focus on the objective of the sanction "obscures obscures this inquiry." inquiry Thus, merely classifying an offence as "regulatory" regulatory or a large sanction such as a fine as being in furtherance of a "regulatory regulatory purpose" purpose of deterring certain conduct obscures the comparative inquiry between the maximum penalty for the offence and the five year imprisonment reference point in s. 11(f). Focusing on the effect on individual liberty and security ensures that the constitutional right to a jury trial is afforded to those facing sanctions more severe than five years' years imprisonment and thereby serves s. 11(/)'s 11(f) s purpose. 32. A focus on the liberty and security interests of the accused is consistent with the approach taken by American courts interpreting the Sixth Amendment.31 The U.S. Supreme Court has held 28 K K.R.J., IC r.. r supra note 1, at iii Ibid, at 39, citing Big M, supra note 3 at p. 331 and Whaling, supra note Ibid. at 40. See also: R. v. Cross, 2006 NSCA 30, 138 C.R.R. (2d) 163, at paras , citing R. v. T.R., [1983] A.J. No. 483 (Q.L.), at 7 and R. v. Lambert (1994), 93 C.C.C. (3d) 88 (Nfld. C.A.), at p U.S. Const. amend VI.
16 9 that an accused has the right to a trial by jury for all but "petty" petty offences, and that no offence can be deemed petty where imprisonment for more than six months is authorized.32 A defendant can overcome the presumption that an offence authorizing less than six months imprisonment is petty "by by showing that the additional penalties, viewed together with the maximum prison term, are so severe that the legislature clearly determined that the offense is a serious 'serious' one."33 one. 33. The U.S. Supreme Court has expressly recognized that substantial fines may impact one's one s liberty and security as much or more than jail time.34 A large fine "may may engender a significant infringement of personal freedom" freedom attracting Sixth Amendment protection.35 As the Supreme Court held in Southern Union Co. v. U.S.: But not all fines are insubstantial, and not all offenses punishable by fines are petty... petty And, where the defendant is an individual, a large fine may "engender engender a 'a significant infringement of personal freedom.'" freedom. Blanton, 489 U.S., at 542, 109 S.Ct (quoting Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147, 151, 89 S.Ct. 1503, 23 L.Ed.2d 162 (1969); see also 18 U.S.C. 3572(a)(2) (requiring court to consider "the the burden that the fine will impose upon the defendant defendant" in determining whether to impose a fine and in what amount) CCF submits that an offence authorizing imprisonment of five years less one day combined with a fine of up to $5 million has a greater impact on the liberty and security interests of offenders than an offence authorizing no more than five years in prison. It is a "more more severe" severe punishment that attracts s. 11(f) protection. 35. A multi-million dollar fine alone has the potential to deprive individuals of their liberty and security through the loss of livelihood, forced sale of assets and permanent loss of credit ratings, for instance. The combined effect on the liberty and security of offenders charged with an Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970); Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970); Lewis v. United States, 116 S.Ct (1996); Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538, 583 (1989) [Blanton] Blanton, ibid See e.g. Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 838, n. 5 (1994) Blanton, supra note 32, at 542, emphasis added. See also: Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147, 151 (1969) Southern Union Co. v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 2344, 2352 (2012), emphasis added.
17 10 offence such as s. 194(1) of the Securities Act is greater than an offence authorizing five years in prison only. PART IV - SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS 36. CCF requests that no costs be awarded either for it or against it. PART V - ORDER SOUGHT 37. For these reasons, CCF respectfully requests an order declaring that s. 194(1) of the Securities Act is subject to s. 11(f) of the Charter and permission to present oral argument at the hearing of this appeal not exceeding 10 minutes. 38. CCF will provide focused oral submissions that differ from the parties and other interveners. No other party or intervener has proposed that the liberty and security interests of offenders be the focal point in determining whether an offence is "more more severe" severe than five years in prison. In oral submissions, the CCF will provide a unique perspective on the s. 11 jurisprudence, the historical foundations of the constitutional right to a jury trial and foreign case law interpreting analogous constitutional provisions. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30th day of January, Darryl Cruz Brandon Kain Byron Shaw Atrisha Lewis
18 11 PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Tab Authority Paragraph(s) 1. Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970) Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538, 583 (1989) 32, Canada (Attorney General) v. Whaling, [2014] 1 S.C.R , Couillard v. Smoky River (Municipal District No. 30), [1980] A.J. No. 163 (Alta. C.A.) Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147, 151 (1969) Goodwin v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 18 [2015] 3 S.C.R Guindon v. Canada, [2015] 3 S.C.R Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R Kempf v. Nguyen, 2015 ONCA Lewis v. United States, 116 S.Ct (1996) Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 838, n. 5 (1994) R. v. Bain, [1992] 1 S.C.R R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R , 10, R. v. Bryant, [1984] O.J. No (C.A.) 20, R. v. Cross, 2006 NSCA 30, 138 C.R.R. (2d) R. v. K.R.J, K.R.J., 2016 SCC 31 1, 3, 9, 13, 17, 26, 27, 29, R. v. Lambert (1994), 93 C.C.C. (3d) 88 (Nfld. C.A.) R. v. Lee, [1989] 2 S.C.R , R. v. Peers, 2015 ABCA R. v. Rodgers, [2006] 1 S.C.R , 18, 27
19 R. v. Sherratt, [1991] 1 S.C.R R. v. Shubley, [1990] 1 S.C.R R. v. T.R., [1983] A.J. No. 483 (Q.L.) R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R , Redshaw v. Fairfield, 2007 CarswellAlta 631 (Q.B.) Shipanoff v. Landry, 2008 ABQB Southern Union Co. v. United States, 132 S.Ct Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970) 32
20 13 PART VII - LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS Tab Legislation Paragraph(s) 1. Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg , s Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 108(1) Jury Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. J-3, s. 17(1)(b) Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rule Securities Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. S-4, s , 4, 19, 35, U.S. Const. amend VI 32
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) - and - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA. - and -
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) Court File No.: 36645 BETWEEN: GILLIAN FRANK AND JAMIE DUONG - and - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA - and - Appellants Respondent
More informationSCC File No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL)
SCC File No. 37276 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: DELTA AIR LINES INC. APPELLANT (Respondent) - and - DR. GÁBOR LUKÁCS RESPONDENT (Appellant) - and
More informationCASL Constitutional Challenge An Overview
McCarthy Tétrault Advance Building Capabilities for Growth CASL Constitutional Challenge An Overview Charles Morgan Direct Line: 514-397-4230 E-Mail: cmorgan@mccarthy.ca October 24, 2016 Overview Freedom
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) JOSEPH PETER PAUL GROIA. -and- THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA
S.C.C. File No. 37112 BETWEEN: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) JOSEPH PETER PAUL GROIA -and- THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA APPELLANT (Appellant) RESPONDENT
More informationIn the Court of Appeal of Alberta
In the Court of Appeal of Alberta Citation: R. v Peers, 2015 ABCA 407 Date: 20151221 Docket: 1503-0076-A 1503-0077-A 1503-0197-A Registry: Edmonton Between: #1503-0076-A/l 503 0077-A Her Majesty the Queen
More informationSCC File No.: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ALBERTA) - and -
SCC File No.: 36612 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ALBERTA) BETWEEN: ALAN PETER KNAPCZYK - and - APPELLANT (Respondent) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT (Appellant)
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL. NOTICE OF MOTION (Motion for Leave to Intervene)
Court File No. A-145-12 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Appellant - and - AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, CHIEFS OF ONTARIO, FIRST NATIONS CHILD & FAMILY CARING SOCIETY, ASSEMBLY OF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal of Alberta)
File Number: 37395 BETWEEN: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal of Alberta) KEVIN PATRICK GUBBINS - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO Appellant
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) BARRETT RICHARD JORDAN and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and Court File No. 36068 APPELLANT (Appellant) RESPONDENT (Respondent)
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED - AND -
Ontario Commission des P.O. Box 55, 19 th Floor CP 55, 19e étage Securities valeurs mobilières 20 Queen Street West 20, rue queen ouest Commission de l Ontario Toronto ON M5H 3S8 Toronto ON M5H 3S8 IN
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA) - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN. -and-
SCC File No. 35982 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA) BETWEEN: JOSEPH RYAN LLOYD - and - APPELLANT HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN -and- RESPONDENT CANADIAN BAR
More informationFACTUM OF THE INTERVENER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
INTHESUPREMECOURTOFCANADA (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador) Court File No.: 35246 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN -and- FREDERICK ANDERSON Appellant Respondent ATTORNEY GENERAL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) JOSEPH PETER PAUL GROIA - AND - THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA -AND-
S.C.C. File No.: 37112 B E T W E E N: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) JOSEPH PETER PAUL GROIA - AND - THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA -AND- APPELLANT RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR MANITOBA)
BETWEEN: S.C.C. Court File No. 36583 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR MANITOBA) SIDNEY GREEN - and - THE LAW SOCIETY OF MANITOBA - and THE FEDERATION OF LAW SOCIETIES
More informationFACTUM OF THE APPELLANT
0 S.C.C. FILE NO. 37596 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE SASKATCHEWAN COURT OF APPEAL) SPENCER DEAN BIRD And HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant (Respondent) Respondent (Appellant) FACTUM
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Miljevic, 2011 SCC 8 DATE: DOCKET: 33714
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Miljevic, 2011 SCC 8 DATE: 20110216 DOCKET: 33714 BETWEEN: Marko Miljevic Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent CORAM: McLachlin C.J. and Deschamps, Fish,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ONTARIO)
BETWEEN: S.C.C. File No. 37863 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ONTARIO) KEATLEY SURVEYING LTD. APPLICANT (Appellant) AND: TERANET INC. RESPONDENT (Respondent) AND:
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR QUEBEC) ALEX BOUDREAULT. - and -
Court File No. 37427 BETWEEN: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR QUEBEC) ALEX BOUDREAULT - and - APPELLANT HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC - and - RESPONDENTS
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) - and - - and -
S.C.C. File No. 37112 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) BETWEEN: JOSEPH PETER PAUL GROIA Appellant (Appellant) - and - THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA Respondent
More informationIndexed as: Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General)
Page 1 Indexed as: Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General) IN THE MATTER OF sections 2(b) and 52(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982; AND
More informationAlberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: Action No
Alberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: 20030318 Action No. 0203 19075 IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON IN THE MATTER OF the Freedom of Information
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (applicant/appellant) v. Richard Gill (respondent/respondent) (C53886; 2012 ONCA 607) Indexed As: R. v. Gill (R.
Her Majesty the Queen (applicant/appellant) v. Richard Gill (respondent/respondent) (C53886; 2012 ONCA 607) Indexed As: R. v. Gill (R.) Ontario Court of Appeal Doherty, Lang and Epstein, JJ.A. September
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) NELL TOUSSAINT. and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) File Number: 34336 BETWEEN NELL TOUSSAINT Applicant Appellant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Respondent
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE ALBERTA COURT OF APPEAL) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA. -and- GILLES CARON
File No.: 33092 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE ALBERTA COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA -and- Appellant (Appellant) GILLES CARON - and - Respondent
More informationRE: The Board s refusal to allow public access to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Hearings
Direct Line: 604-630-9928 Email: Laura@bccla.org BY EMAIL January 20, 2016 Peter Watson, Chair National Energy Board 517 Tenth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2R 0A8 RE: The Board s refusal to allow public
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ROBERT DAVID NICHOLAS BRADSHAW -AND-
sec File No. 36537 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA) BETWEEN: AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ROBERT DAVID NICHOLAS BRADSHAW -AND- APPELLANT (Respondent)
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Vellone, 2011 ONCA 785 DATE: 20111214 DOCKET: C50397 MacPherson, Simmons and Blair JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Ex Rel. The Regional Municipality of York
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) - and -
i' - I 1-1 1 YYV,/V 5 i rax!r IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) No. 23801 lv.*&~%, BETWEEN: DONALD AND WILLIAM GLADSTONE - and - Appellants HER MAJESTY
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 991 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 34/09 DATE: 20100326 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL
More informationKeith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen (applicants) v. The University of Calgary (respondent) ( ; 2010 ABQB 644)
In The Matter Of Keith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen on Findings of Non-Academic Misconduct on Appeal from the Ad Hoc Review Committee of the General Faculties Council Keith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen (applicants)
More informationResearch Papers. Contents
` Legislative Library and Research Services Research Papers WHEN DO ONTARIO ACTS AND REGULATIONS COME INTO FORCE? Research Paper B31 (revised March 2018) Revised by Tamara Hauerstock Research Officer Legislative
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Court File No. A-145-12 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA APPELLANT - and- CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, FIRST NATIONS CHILD AND FAMILY CARING SOCIETY, ASSEMBLY OF FIRST
More informationCONSULTATION MEMORANDUM Consultation regarding criminal court record information available through Court Services Online (July 2015)
THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA CONSULTATION MEMORANDUM Consultation regarding criminal court record information available through Court Services Online (July 2015) I. Background Court Services
More informationNOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
TRIBUNAL NUMBERS T1073/5405 and T1074/5505 CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: RICHARD WARMAN COMPLAINANT AND CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND COMMISSION MARC LEMIRE and THE FREEDOMSITE RESPONDENTS
More informationCanadian soldiers are entitled to the rights and freedoms they fight to uphold.
Canadian soldiers are entitled to the rights and freedoms they fight to uphold. This report is a critical analysis Bill C-41, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. -and- ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA.
SCC File No. 37208 BETWEEN: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION -and- ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA -and- APPELLANT (Appellant) RESPONDENT
More informationLAND AGENTS LICENSING ACT
Province of Alberta LAND AGENTS LICENSING ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of June 12, 2013 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer Suite 700, Park
More informationSET FINE APPLICATIONS
SET FINE APPLICATIONS Kerry Lee Thompson Crown Counsel Ministry of the Attorney General Crown Law Office-Criminal 720 Bay Street, 10 th Floor Toronto, Ontario M7A 2S9 Tel: (416) 326-1831 Fax: (416) 326-1746
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (Manitoba Court of Appeal) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (Supreme Court Act section 40 R.S., c.5-19, s.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (Manitoba Court of Appeal) File No. BETWEEN: ERNEST LIONEL JOSEPH BLAIS, - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, - and - MÉTIS NATIONAL COUNCIL, Applicant (Accused), Respondent (Informant),
More informationPATENTED MEDICINE PRICES REVIEW BOARD. IN THE MATTER OF the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, as amended
PATENTED MEDICINE PRICES REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, as amended AND IN THE MATTER OF Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. and the medicine Soliris REPLY BY BOARD STAFF TO
More informationThe Supreme Court of Canada and Hate Publications: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott
The Supreme Court of Canada and Hate Publications: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott Tom Irvine Ministry of Justice, Constitutional Law Branch Human Rights Code Amendments May 5, 2014 Saskatoon
More informationMANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES: HANDCUFFING THE PRISONER OR THE JUDGE?
MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES: HANDCUFFING THE PRISONER OR THE JUDGE?.THE CANADIAN EXPERIENCE SO FAR American Judges Association, Annual Educational Conference October 7, 2014 Las Vegas, Nevada Judge Catherine
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL)
BETWEEN: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) cmppewas OF THE THAMES FIRST NATION -and- File No. 36776 APPLICANT (Appellant) ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC. THE NATIONAL
More informationSET FINE APPLICATIONS BEST PRACTICES MANUAL
SET FINE APPLICATIONS BEST PRACTICES MANUAL Ministry of the Attorney General Crown Law Office-Criminal 720 Bay Street, 10 th Floor Toronto, Ontario M7A 2S9 Tel: (416) 326-1831 Fax: (416) 326-1746 September
More informationALBERTA PERSONAL PROPERTY BILL OF RIGHTS
Province of Alberta ALBERTA PERSONAL PROPERTY BILL OF RIGHTS Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter A-31 Current as of December 11, 2013 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta
More informationFile No.: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE QUÉBEC COURT OF APPEAL) - and - THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF CANADA
File No.: 33313 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE QUÉBEC COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: TIBERIU GAVRILA - and - Appellant (Applicant) THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF CANADA Respondent (Respondent)
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
B E T W E E N: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Court File No. (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) NISHNAWBE-ASKI NATION and GINOOGAMING FIRST NATION, LONG LAKE 58 FIRST NATION, and TRANSCANADA
More informationJ. M. Denis Lavoie Respondent
R. v. Richard, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 525 Her Majesty The Queen Appellant v. Réjean Richard and between Respondent Her Majesty The Queen Appellant v. Léo J. Doiron Respondent and between Her Majesty The Queen
More informationMcNeil Disclosure Packages
TRANSIT POLICE MCNEIL DISCLOSURE PACKAGES Effective Date: Interim Policy February 18, 2010 Revised Date: January 31, 2014 Reviewed Date: Review Frequency: As Required Office of Primary Responsibility:
More informationCanada: Electronic Commerce Law Overview
Canada: Electronic Commerce Law Overview Stikeman Elliott LLP Canada: Electronic Commerce Law Overview... 2 Jurisdiction... 2... 2 Dealing with the Uncertainty... 4 Electronic Commerce Legislation... 4...
More informationEnforcement of International Arbitral Awards in Canada
McCarthy Tétrault LLP PO Box 48, Suite 5300 Toronto-Dominion Bank Tower Toronto ON M5K 1E6 Canada Tel: 416-362-1812 Fax: 416-868-0673 Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards in Canada DAVID I. W.
More informationConstitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue
Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue David Stratas Introduction After much controversy, 1 the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that tribunals that have
More informationFile No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) MATTHEW JOHN ANTHONY-COOK.
BETWEEN: File No. 36410 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) MATTHEW JOHN ANTHONY-COOK and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and Appellant (Appellant) Respondent
More informationPROVINCIAL OFFENCES PROCEDURE ACT
Province of Alberta PROVINCIAL OFFENCES PROCEDURE ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter P-34 Current as of May 1, 2017 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer
More informationSTATEMENT OF DEFENCE
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Court File No.: CV-17-578059-00CP B E T W E E N: ROBIN CIRILLO Plaintiff - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO Defendant Proceedings under
More informationAN OVERVIEW OF CANADA S MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM
AN OVERVIEW OF CANADA S MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM I. WHY CANADA HAS A SEPARATE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM 1. Canada s military justice system is a unique, self-contained system that is an integral part of the
More informationThe Constitutional Validity of Bill S-201. Presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
The Constitutional Validity of Bill S-201 Presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Professor Bruce Ryder Osgoode Hall Law School, York University 22 November 2016 I am pleased
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Ronald Jones (respondent) (C52480; 2011 ONCA 632) Indexed As: R. v. Jones (R.)
Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Ronald Jones (respondent) (C52480; 2011 ONCA 632) Indexed As: R. v. Jones (R.) Ontario Court of Appeal MacPherson, Blair and Epstein, JJ.A. October 11, 2011. Summary:
More informationReligious Freedom and the State in Canada and the U.S.: A Comparative Analysis of Saguenay, Town of Greece, Loyola, and Hobby Lobby
Religious Freedom and the State in Canada and the U.S.: A Comparative Analysis of Saguenay, Town of Greece, Loyola, and Hobby Lobby Prepared For: Legal Education Society of Alberta Constitutional Law Symposium
More informationCCPA Analysis Of Bill C-36 An Act To Combat Terrorism
research analysis solutions CCPA Analysis Of Bill C-36 An Act To Combat Terrorism INTRODUCTION The Canadian government has a responsibility to protect Canadians from actual and potential human rights abuses
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) JOSEPH PETER PAUL GROIA. - and - THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA
BETWEEN: S.C.C. FILE NO. 37112 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) JOSEPH PETER PAUL GROIA - and - THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA - and - APPELLANT (Appellant)
More informationCriminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2010
Digest No. 1819 Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2010 Date of Introduction: 15 November 2010 Portfolio: Select Committee: Published: 18 November 2010 by John McSoriley BA LL.B, Barrister,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Awashish, 2018 SCC 45 APPEAL HEARD: February 7, 2018 JUDGMENT RENDERED: October 26, 2018 DOCKET: 37207 BETWEEN: Her Majesty The Queen Appellant and Justine Awashish
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SASKATCHEWAN)
BETWEEN: SCC File No. 35423 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SASKATCHEWAN) THE SASKATCHEWAN FEDERATION OF LABOUR (IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND ON BEHALF OF THE UNIONS AND WORKERS
More informationWRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT: REPLY TO RESPONSE OF THE MINISTER OF HEAL TH OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
PATENTED MEDICINE PRICES REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF the Patent Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4, as amended AND IN THE MATTER OF Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. (" Respondent" ) and the medicine " Soliris" WRITTEN
More informationSTERN + LANDESMAN CLARK LLP
09/08/2015 11:46 4168693449 STERNLANDESMANCLARK PAGE 01/08 STERN + LANDESMAN CLARK LLP BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS PAUL D. STERN pstern sternlaw. ca DAVIDM. LANDESMAN land sman@sternlaw.ca JAMES R D. C LARK
More informationBill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION
Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION November 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) PREFACE...
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. The Queen, 2011 SCC 3 DATE: DOCKET: 32987
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. The Queen, 2011 SCC 3 DATE: 20110128 DOCKET: 32987 BETWEEN: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen and Stéphan
More informationFEDERAL COURT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA. -and-
Court File No. T- ' \ ~ - A- FEDERAL COURT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA -and- APPLICANT FIRST NATIONS CHILD AND FAMILY CARING SOCIETY OF CANADA, ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS, CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION,
More informationDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CANADA
ii DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CANADA 234 Wellington Street, Room 1161 Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8 Telephone: (613) 957-4763 Facsimile: (613) 954-1920 Email: robert.frater@justice.gc.ca Robert J. Frater Christopher M.
More informationJustice Green s decision is a sophisticated engagement with some of the issues raised last class about the moral justification of punishment.
PHL271 Handout 9: Sentencing and Restorative Justice We re going to deepen our understanding of the problems surrounding legal punishment by closely examining a recent sentencing decision handed down in
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Hatt, 2017 NSCA 36. Her Majesty the Queen
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Hatt, 2017 NSCA 36 Date: 20170509 Docket: CAC 457828 Registry: Halifax Between: Richard Edward Hatt v. Her Majesty the Queen Appellant Respondent Judge: Appeal
More informationCONSULTING ENGINEERS OF ALBERTA ACT
Province of Alberta CONSULTING ENGINEERS OF ALBERTA ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter C-26 Current as of December 15, 2017 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen
More informationSYLLABUS. State of New Jersey v. James R. Denelsbeck (A-42-14) (075170)
SYLLABUS (This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme
More informationIN THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL (ON APPEAL FROM THE DIVISIONAL COURT)
Court of Appeal Number: C61116 Divisional Court File No.: 250/14 IN THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL (ON APPEAL FROM THE DIVISIONAL COURT) B E T W E E N: TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY and BRAYDEN VOLKENANAT Applicants
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN. -and- D.B. (A Young Person) [Publication Ban in Effect Pursuant to s.
Court File No. C42923 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant -and- D.B. (A Young Person) [Publication Ban in Effect Pursuant to s.110 of the YCJA] Respondent FACTUM OF THE
More informationLANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS IN QUÉBEC UNDER
AUG UST 2008 LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS IN QUÉBEC UNDER THE CHARTER OF THE FRENCH LANGUAGE : WHAT DO YOU NEED TO KNOW?* By Geneviève Bergeron and Réa Hawi** If you or your client is selling or contemplating
More informationIn the Court of Appeal of Alberta
In the Court of Appeal of Alberta Citation: Bowden Institution v Khadr, 2015 ABCA 159 Between: Dave Pelham, Warden of Bowden Institution and Her Majesty the Queen Date: 20150507 Docket: 1503-0118-A Registry:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26 DATE: DOCKET: and. Sean Summers Respondent. - and -
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26 DATE: 20140411 DOCKET: 35339 BETWEEN: Her Majesty The Queen Appellant and Sean Summers Respondent - and - Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: R v Giesbrecht, 2018 MBCA 40 Date: 20180413 Docket: AR17-30-08912 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA B ETWEEN : ) G. G. Brodsky, Q.C. and ) Z. B. Kinahan HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) for the Applicant
More informationCHURCH LAW BULLETIN NO. 24
CHURCH LAW BULLETIN NO. 24 Carters Professional Corporation / Société professionnelle Carters Barristers, Solicitors & Trade-mark Agents / Avocats et agents de marques de commerce JANUARY 23, 2009 Editor:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: DOCKET: 34135, 34193
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: 20120720 DOCKET: 34135, 34193 BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: John Virgil Punko Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Randall Richard Potts
More informationCitation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: 2000308 2000 PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC-17475 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
More informationCANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. - and -
Tribunal File: T1340/7008 B E T W E E N: CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL FIRST NATIONS CHILD AND FAMILY CARING SOCIETY OF CANADA and ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS Complainants (Moving Party) - and - CANADIAN
More information5.9 PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS GUIDELINE OF THE DIRECTOR ISSUED UNDER SECTION 3(3)(c) OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ACT March 1, 2014 -2- TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 2
More information1.1.3 Notice of Memorandum of Understanding with the China Securities Regulatory Commission MEMORANDUM
1.1.3 Notice of Memorandum of Understanding with the China Securities Regulatory Commission Memorandum of Understanding with the China Securities Regulatory Commission The Ontario Securities Commission,
More informationWRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT (Alexion's Motion to Strike Evidence as Inadmissible) PART 1 - OVERVIEW
PATENTED MEDICINE PRICES REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF the Patent Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4, as amended AND IN THE MATTER OF Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Respondent") and the Medicine "Soliris" WRITTEN
More informationISSN # Price $5.00
Lobbyists Registration Office Ontario ANNUAL REPORT APRIL 1, 2002 MARCH 31, 2003 Copies of this and other Ontario Government publications are available at 880 Bay Street, Toronto, ON M7A 1N8 or Access
More informationCase Name: R. v. Stagg. Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Norman Stagg. [2011] M.J. No MBPC 9. Manitoba Provincial Court
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. Stagg Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Norman Stagg [2011] M.J. No. 56 2011 MBPC 9 Manitoba Provincial Court B.M. Corrin Prov. Ct. J. February 11, 2011. (19 paras.) Counsel: Nathaniel
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Court File No. 36200 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) BETWEEN: K.R.J. APPELLANT (Respondent) and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT (Appellant) FACTUM
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Spencer, 2015 NSCA 108. Debra Jane Spencer. v. Her Majesty The Queen
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Spencer, 2015 NSCA 108 Date: 20151202 Docket: CAC 444045 Registry: Halifax Between: Judge: Motion Heard: Debra Jane Spencer v. Her Majesty The Queen MacDonald,
More informationMEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL From: Lawrence Rubin Date: March 23, 2018 Subject: Professional Standards (Criminal) Committee Standard No. 3: Defence Obligations Regarding Disclosure FOR: APPROVAL INTRODUCTION
More informationA View From the Bench Administrative Law
A View From the Bench Administrative Law Justice David Farrar Nova Scotia Court of Appeal With the Assistance of James Charlton, Law Clerk Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Court of Appeal for Ontario: Mavi
More informationTOP FIVE R v LLOYD, 2016 SCC 13, [2016] 1 SCR 130. Facts. Procedural History. Ontario Justice Education Network
Each year at OJEN s Toronto Summer Law Institute, former Ontario Court of Appeal judge Stephen Goudge presents his selection of the top five cases from the previous year that are of significance in an
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NELL TOUSSAINT. and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA. and THE CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Court File No.: A-362-10 BETWEEN: NELL TOUSSAINT Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent and THE CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW OF THE
More informationIn the Court of Appeal of Alberta
In the Court of Appeal of Alberta Citation: Edmonton (Police Service) v Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board), 2014 ABCA 267 Between: Chief of Police of the Edmonton Police Service - and - Law Enforcement
More informationHer Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51166)
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51166) Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51877) Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Paul Whalen
More informationDeal or no Deal The Antitrust Plea Agreement that Came and Went in R. v. Couche-Tard Inc.
Deal or no Deal The Antitrust Plea Agreement that Came and Went in R. v. Couche-Tard Inc. Huy Do Partner Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP & Antonio Di Domenico Partner Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP 1 OVERVIEW
More informationThe McLachlin Court in Criminal Law: A Principled and Pragmatic Court. By Justice Shaun Nakatsuru June 19, 2009 Ottawa
The McLachlin Court in Criminal Law: A Principled and Pragmatic Court By Justice Shaun Nakatsuru June 19, 2009 Ottawa INTRODUCTION Over the last decade, in criminal law, the McLachlin Court has offered
More informationFINANCIAL CONSUMERS ACT
Province of Alberta FINANCIAL CONSUMERS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of December 15, 2017 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer Suite 700,
More information