R. v. Adamo (M.P.), (2013) 296 Man.R.(2d) 245 (QB)

• Judge: Suche, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: September 23, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2013), 296 Man.R.(2d) 245 (QB);2013 MBQB 225

R. v. Adamo (M.P.) (2013), 296 Man.R.(2d) 245 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.011

Her Majesty The Queen v. Mario Phillip Adamo (accused)

(CR 10-01-30375; 2013 MBQB 225)

Indexed As: R. v. Adamo (M.P.)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Suche, J.

September 23, 2013.

Summary:

Police discovered a handgun and some ammunition inside a garden shed on the accused's property. The accused, who was mentally disabled, was convicted of one count of possession of an unloaded prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition (Criminal Code, s. 95(1)). The accused argued that s. 95(2)(a)(i), which imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for a first offence under s. 95(1), was contrary to ss. 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that s. 95(2)(a)(i) violated ss. 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter and could not be saved by s. 1. As a remedy, the court severed the portion of s. 95(2)(a)(i) that imposed the mandatory minimum sentence. The court's declaration was to take effect immediately. The court considered that an appropriate sentence for the accused was six months plus three years' probation.

Civil Rights - Topic 960.5

Discrimination - Mental or physical disability - Sentencing (incl. mandatory minimum sentences) - Section 95(1) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to be in possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm and ammunition without a licence - The accused, who was mentally disabled, argued that s. 95(2)(a)(i) of the Code, which imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for a first offence under s. 95(1), was contrary to s. 15 of the Charter - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held s. 95(2)(a)(i) violated s. 15 of the Charter because it did not permit the accused to be sentenced in a manner that recognized his disability and its role in the commission of the offence - It did not take into account the impact on this class of already disadvantaged persons - See paragraphs 124 to 147.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107.2

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Overbreadth principle - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 3165.8 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3147

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Mentally disabled accused - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 3165.8 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3151

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Sentencing (incl. mandatory minimum sentences) - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 3165.8 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3165.8

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Moral involuntariness or moral blameworthiness (i.e., the constitutional mens rea requirement) - Section 95(1) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to be in possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm and ammunition without a licence - The accused, who was mentally disabled, argued that s. 95(2)(a)(i) of the Code, which imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for a first offence under s. 95(1), was contrary to s. 7 of the Charter - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that a mandatory minimum sentence which precluded consideration of the reduced moral blameworthiness of a mentally disabled offender, and imposed a grossly disproportionate sentence, violated s. 7 - Also, s. 95(2)(a)(i) was overbroad and violated s. 7 for that reason too - See paragraphs 93 to 123.

Civil Rights - Topic 3165.8

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Moral involuntariness or moral blameworthiness (i.e., the constitutional mens rea requirement) - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench discussed proportionality in sentencing as a principle of fundamental justice - See paragraphs 93 to 113 - The court concluded that "...  proportionality, whereby the moral blameworthiness of an individual is taken into account, is equally a principle of fundamental justice protected by s. 7 both in criminalizing conduct and in determining punishment for an offence." - See paragraph 113.

Civil Rights - Topic 3829

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes - Mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences - Section 95(1) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to be in possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm and ammunition without a licence - The accused, who was mentally disabled, argued that s. 95(2)(a)(i) of the Code, which imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for a first offence under s. 95(1), was contrary to s. 12 of the Charter - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that absent the mandatory minimum sentence provisions the appropriate sentence was six months plus probation - The court held that s. 95(2)(a)(i) violated s. 12 of the Charter because the mandatory minimum sentence resulted in a grossly disproportionate sentence for the offence and for the individual accused - See paragraphs 78 to 92.

Civil Rights - Topic 5652

Equality and protection of the law - Particular cases - Minimum sentences - [See Civil Rights - Topic 960.5 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.14 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.14

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Severance of portion of statute or section - The Criminal Code, s. 95(1), made it an offence to be in possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm and ammunition without a licence - A mentally disabled accused challenged the constitutionality of s. 95(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code which imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for a first offence under s. 95(1) - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that s. 95(2)(a)(i) violated ss. 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter and could not be saved by s. 1 - As a remedy, the court severed the portion of s. 95(2)(a)(i) that imposed the mandatory minimum sentence - The court's declaration was to take effect immediately - See paragraphs 78 to 161.

Criminal Law - Topic 5801.1

Sentencing - General - Proportionality - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 3165.8 and Civil Rights - Topic 3829 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5805

Sentencing - General - Statutory range mandatory (incl. mandatory minimum sentence) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.14 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5832.3

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Imprisonment - Effect of - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench discussed the effect on sentencing where an offender would be particularly affected by imprisonment because of physical or mental disabilities - See paragraphs 48 to 55.

Criminal Law - Topic 5834.7

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Mental illness or disorder - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench discussed mental health and the systemic failures by the justice system to treat mental health issues as factors in sentencing - See paragraphs 29 to 47.

Criminal Law - Topic 5834.7

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Mental illness or disorder - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.14 and Criminal Law - Topic 5832.3 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.20

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Use or possession of firearms - [See [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.14 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.5

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Competency of accused - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.14 and Criminal Law - Topic 5832.3 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5871

Sentence - Possession and use or sale of weapons or ammunition - Police discovered a handgun and some ammunition inside a garden shed on the accused's property - The accused, who was mentally disabled from a severe brain injury, was convicted of one count of possession of an unloaded prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition (Criminal Code, s. 95(1)) - The accused was 39, lived with his elderly mother and was essentially unemployable - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench declared the mandatory minimum sentence of three years (s. 95(2)(a)(i)) unconstitutional and imposed a sentence without regard to the mandatory minimum - The court imposed a sentence of six months plus three years' probation - See paragraphs 6 to 17 and 162 to 166.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Kinnear (R.) (2005), 199 O.A.C. 323; 198 C.C.C.(3d) 232 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Nur (H.) et al., [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 4874; 275 C.C.C.(3d) 330; 2011 ONSC 4874, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Smickle (2012), 280 C.C.C.(3d) 365; 2012 ONSC 602, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Sheck, 2013 BCPC 105, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Los (J.), [2008] O.T.C. Uned. H17 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Canepa, 2011 ONSC 1406, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Snobelen, [2008] O.J. No. 6021 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. T.A.P., [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 797; 2013 ONSC 797, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Cross (J.) (2012), 328 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 41; 1019 A.P.R. 41 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Robinson (1974), 19 C.C.C.(2d) 193 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Newby (1991), 120 A.R. 68; 8 W.A.C. 68; 84 Alta. L.R.(2d) 127 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Rhyno (V.W.) (2009), 283 N.S.R.(2d) 246; 900 A.P.R. 246; 2009 NSCA 108, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Dickson (T.L.) (2007), 248 B.C.A.C. 217; 412 W.A.C. 217; 228 C.C.C.(3d) 450; 2007 BCCA 561, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Muldoon (W.S.) (2006), 401 A.R. 42; 391 W.A.C. 42; 213 C.C.C.(3d) 468; 2006 ABCA 321, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Valiquette (1990), 37 Q.A.C. 8; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 325 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Ayorech (C.D.) (2012), 522 A.R. 306; 544 W.A.C. 306; 2012 ABCA 82, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Peterkin, [2003] O.J. No. 4403 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Shahnawaz (A.M.) (2000), 137 O.A.C. 363; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Wust (L.W.) et al. (1998), 107 B.C.A.C. 130; 174 W.A.C. 130; 125 C.C.C.(3d) 43 (C.A.), revsd. [2000] 1 S.C.R. 455; 252 N.R. 332; 134 B.C.A.C. 236; 219 W.A.C. 236; 2000 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. M.N.J., 2002 YKTC 15, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Messervey (No. 2) (1991), 96 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 314; 305 A.P.R. 314 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Wallace (1973), 11 C.C.C.(2d) 95 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Irvine (C.W.) (2008), 225 Man.R.(2d) 281; 419 W.A.C. 281; 2008 MBCA 34, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Ferrigon (V.J.), [2007] O.T.C. Uned. 876 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Goltz, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485; 131 N.R. 1; 5 B.C.A.C. 161; 11 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (No. 2) (1998), 167 N.S.R.(2d) 43; 502 A.P.R. 43; 124 C.C.C.(3d) 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Ferguson (M.E.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96; 371 N.R. 231; 425 A.R. 79; 418 W.A.C. 79; 2008 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 80].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 95].

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; 281 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Ruzic (M.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687; 268 N.R. 1; 145 O.A.C. 235; 2001 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Ipeelee (M.), [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433; 428 N.R. 1; 2012 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571; 314 N.R. 1; 191 B.C.A.C. 1; 314 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 74, refd to. [para. 107].

United States of America v. Burns and Rafay, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283; 265 N.R. 212; 148 B.C.A.C. 1; 243 W.A.C. 1; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 2001 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Demers (R.), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489; 323 N.R. 201; 2004 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 119].

R. v. Khawaja (M.M.), [2012] 3 S.C.R. 555; 437 N.R. 42; 2012 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 120].

A. v. B. (2013), 439 N.R. 1; 2013 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 125].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. A. - see A. v. B.

R. v. Kapp (J.M.) et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 483; 376 N.R. 1; 256 B.C.A.C. 75; 431 W.A.C. 75; 2008 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 126].

Withler v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 1 S.C.R. 396; 412 N.R. 149; 300 B.C.A.C. 120; 509 W.A.C. 120; 2011 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 126].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 130].

Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 132].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 135].

Winko v. Forensic Psychiatric Institute (B.C.) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625; 241 N.R. 1; 124 B.C.A.C. 1; 203 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 149].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 148]; sect. 7 [para. 93]; sect. 12 [para. 78]; sect. 15(1) [para. 124].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 95(2) [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, No. 033, 1st Sess., 39th Parliament, (June 5, 2006), p. 1941; s. 718 [para. 77].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

Roach, Kent, and Bailey, Andrea, The Relevance of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder in Canadian Criminal Law from Investigation to Sentencing (2009), 42 U.B.C. Law Rev. 1, p. 4 [para. 145].

Ruby, Clayton C., Sentencing (7th Ed. 2008), §5.251, pp. 293, 294 [para. 31]; 231 to 234 [para. 48].

Counsel:

Deborah L. Carson and Carla J. Dewar, for the Crown;

Gregory A. Gudelot and Daniel V. Gunn, for the accused.

This decision was heard by Suche, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following decision on September 23, 2013.