R. v. C.M., (1995) 82 O.A.C. 68 (CA)

• Judge: Goodman, Catzman and Abella, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: May 24, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1995), 82 O.A.C. 68 (CA)

R. v. C.M. (1995), 82 O.A.C. 68 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. C.M. (respondent)

(C12929)

Indexed As: R. v. C.M.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Goodman, Catzman and Abella, JJ.A.

May 24, 1995.

Summary:

The accused was charged with, inter alia, having anal intercourse with a person under the age of 18 who was not married contrary to s. 159 of the Criminal Code. He argued that s. 159 was contrary to ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter. The trial judge held that s. 159 was contrary to s. 7 because it deprived the accused of the defence of consent. As a remedy, the trial judge read this defence into s. 159 and found the accused not guilty. The trial judge did not deal with s. 15. The Crown appealed, arguing that s. 159 was not contrary to s. 7 or s. 15.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court held that s. 159 was contrary to s. 15 of the Charter and could not be justified under s. 1.

Civil Rights - Topic 922

Discrimination - Marital status - Homosexuals - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1128 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 953

Discrimination - Sexual orientation - Homosexuals - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1128 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1128

Discrimination - Criminal and quasi-criminal law - On basis of age - The Criminal Code, s. 159, prohibited anal intercourse unless both consenting individuals were 18 years old or married - The Ontario Court of Appeal per Goodman and Catzman, JJ.A., held that s. 159 constituted discrimination on the basis of age contrary to s. 15 of the Charter - Abella, J.A., opined that s. 159 discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and on the related grounds of age and marital status because s. 159 arbitrarily disadvantaged gay men - The court held that s. 159 was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter, rejecting the Crown's argument that s. 159 was justified to protect young persons from risk of physical and psychological harm, particularly the increased risk for HIV transmission - The court declared s. 159 invalid.

Civil Rights - Topic 1130

Discrimination - Criminal and quasi-criminal law - On basis of sex or sexual orientation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1128 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1128 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Declaration of statute invalidity - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1128 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8486

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Equality provision (s. 15) - Abella, J.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of "discrimination" within the context of s. 15 of the Charter - See paragraphs 9 to 18.

Civil Rights - Topic 8666

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - Meaning of "discrimination" - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8486 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8668

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - What constitutes a breach of s. 15 - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1128 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 704

Sexual offences - Anal intercourse - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1128 ].

Words and Phrases

Discrimination - The Ontario Court of Appeal, per Abella, J.A., discussed the meaning of "discrimination" within the context of s. 15 of the Charter - See paragraphs 9 to 18.

Cases Noticed:

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 3].

Haig and Birch v. Canada et al. (1992), 57 O.A.C. 272; 9 O.R.(3d) 495 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 8].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 8; 69 C.R.(3d) 97; 39 C.R.R. 306, refd to. [para. 11].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 658, refd to. [para. 19].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1993] 3 F.C. 401; 153 N.R. 161; 103 D.L.R.(4th) 336 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal allowed [1993] 3 S.C.R. vi; 163 N.R. 239, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 26].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 545; 2 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 906; 119 N.R. 353; 46 O.A.C. 13; 73 Man.R.(2d) 1; 3 W.A.C. 1; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 289; 79 C.R.(3d) 332; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 32].

Halm v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1995), 91 F.T.R. 106 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 23]; sect. 7 [para. 3]; sect. 15 [para. 9].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [para. 3].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 159 [para. 2].

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, 48 & 49 Vict., c. 69, sect. 11 [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Eichler, M., The Elusive Ideal - Defining Equality (1988), 5 C.H.R.Y.B. 167, generally [para. 13].

Lepofsky, M.D., The Canadian Judicial Approach to Equality Rights: Freedom Ride or Rollercoaster? (1992), 1 N.J.C.L. 315, generally [para. 11].

Royal Commission on Equality in Employment (1984), p. 3 [para. 16].

Sheppard, C., Litigating the Relationship Between Equity and Equality, Study Paper for Ontario Law Reform Commission (1993), generally [para. 11].

Smith, Lynn, and Black, William, The Equality Rights in The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2nd Ed. 1989), p. 557 [para. 11].

Smith, Lynn, Judicial Interpretation of Equality Rights Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Some Clear and Present Dangers (1988), 23 U.B.C.L. Rev. 65, generally [para. 11].

Counsel:

Jay L. Naster, for the appellant;

Bruce W. Duncan and Todd Ducharme, for the respondent;

Brian Weagant and Sheena S. Scott, for the intervenor, The Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law;

David L. Corbett, for the intervenor, The Canadian Aids Society and The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.

This appeal was heard on November 14, 15 and 16, 1994, before Goodman, Catzman and Abella, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision of the court was released on May 24, 1995, including the following opinions:

Abella, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 38;

Goodman and Catzman, JJ.A. - see paragraphs 39 to 44.