R. v. Chambers (D.F.), 2014 YKCA 13

• Judge: Bauman, C.J.B.C., Donald and Cooper, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory)
• Case Date: April 29, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Yukon
• Citations: 2014 YKCA 13;(2014), 362 B.C.A.C. 22 (YukCA)

R. v. Chambers (D.F.) (2014), 362 B.C.A.C. 22 (YukCA);

    622 W.A.C. 22

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] B.C.A.C. TBEd. OC.005

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. David Frederick Chambers (respondent)

(CA 13-YU731; 2014 YKCA 13)

Indexed As: R. v. Chambers (D.F.)

Yukon Court of Appeal

Bauman, C.J.B.C., Donald and Cooper, JJ.A.

October 7, 2014.

Summary:

The accused, an aboriginal person, pleaded guilty to break, enter and commit assault, common assault and uttering threats.

The Yukon Territorial Court, in a decision reported [2013] Yukon Cases Uned. (TC) 77, after considering the Gladue factors, imposed a global sentence of 15 months. The sentencing judge then considered whether the accused was entitled to enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody. The judge explained that the accused had spent two distinct periods of time in custody. The availability of enhanced remand credit for the first period of 64 days, from July 29, 2011 to September 29, 2011, was not contentious. However, the accused was re-arrested on September 24, 2012, on new charges. His earlier process was revoked pursuant to s. 524(8) of the Criminal Code, and he consented to his remand until released on May 17, 2013, pending an appeal. That amounted to an additional 236 days spent in pre-trial custody, for a total of 300 days. The Crown argued that the remand credit for the second period of 236 days was limited to 1:1 by operation of s. 719(3) and (3.1) of the Criminal Code. The defence took the position that the accused should be entitled to enhanced credit of 1.5:1 for the second period of pre-trial custody, raising a statutory interpretation issue and a Charter issue. The sentencing judge resolved the issue of statutory interpretation in favour of the accused, holding him entitled to an enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody. The judge also considered the Charter issues, holding that a portion of s. 719(3.1) offended ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter and could not be saved by s. 1. The judge declared that portion of the provision of no force and effect in the case of the accused. The Crown appealed.

The Yukon Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, and set aside the judge's declaration that s. 719(3.1) was of no force and effect as it pertained to the s. 524(4) and (8) exceptions in the Code and directed that the accused's sentence be calculated to take into account a credit of 1:1 for the disputed period of pre-sentence custody. That is, the accused was not eligible for enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody for the disputed period. There was no violation of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 1038

Discrimination - Race and national or ethnic origin - Criminal matters - Sentencing - Aboriginal persons - See paragraphs 115 to 128.

Civil Rights - Topic 1127

Discrimination - Criminal and quasi-criminal law - Penalties - See paragraphs 115 to 128.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107.2

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Overbreadth principle (incl. arbitrariness) - See paragraphs 88 to 105.

Civil Rights - Topic 8671

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - Enumerated categories - See paragraphs 115 to 128.

Criminal Law - Topic 3319

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Vacating, cancelling or varying interim release or detention order - See paragraphs 47 to 69.

Criminal Law - Topic 5801.1

Sentencing - General - Proportionality - See paragraphs 106 to 114.

Criminal Law - Topic 5846.1

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Aboriginal offenders - See paragraphs 70 to 87.

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.2

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Time already served - See paragraphs 37 to 141.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Atkinson (D.R.) (2003), 170 O.A.C. 117 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

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. 22].

R. v. Ipeelee (M.), [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433; 428 N.R. 1; 288 O.A.C. 224; 318 B.C.A.C. 1; 541 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 24].

Bedford et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 290 O.A.C. 236; 2012 ONCA 186, refd to. [para. 27].

Bedford et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 452 N.R. 1; 312 O.A.C. 53; 2013 SCC 72, refd to. [para. 27].

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. 32].

A. v. B., [2013] 1 S.C.R. 61; 439 N.R. 1; 2013 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 32].

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

R. v. Summers (S.) (2014), 456 N.R. 1; 316 O.A.C. 349; 2014 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Beck, 2014 NWTTC 9, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Taylor (T.A.S.) (2014), 359 B.C.A.C. 49; 615 W.A.C. 49; 2014 BCCA 304, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. McBeath (B.J.) (2014), 359 B.C.A.C. 110; 615 W.A.C. 110; 2014 BCCA 305, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Morris (K.A.) (2013), 305 O.A.C. 47; 2013 ONCA 223, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Nevills (J.), [2014] O.A.C. Uned. 300; 2014 ONCA 340, refd to. [para. 55].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Cardinal (J.G.) (2013), 342 B.C.A.C. 226; 585 W.A.C. 226; 2013 YKCA 14, refd to. [para. 77].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Leonard (2012), 296 O.A.C. 258; 2012 ONCA 622, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Anderson (F.) (2013), 331 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 308; 1027 A.P.R. 308; 2013 NLCA 2, revd. (2014), 458 N.R. 1; 350 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 289; 1088 A.P.R. 289; 2014 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 112].

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. 112].

R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (No. 2), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 90; 259 N.R. 95; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 585 A.P.R. 1; 2000 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. T.M.B., [2011] O.J. No. 4836 (C.J.), affd. [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 4019; 2013 ONSC 4019, refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Safarzadeh-Markhali (H.) (2014), 325 O.A.C. 17; 2014 ONCA 627, refd to. [para. 129].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 15 [para. 2].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 524(4) [para. 141]; sect. 524(8) [para. 48]; sect. 719(3), sect. 719(3.1) [para. 12].

Truth in Sentencing Act, S.C. 2009, c. 29, generally [para. 38].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, No. 41, 2nd Sess., 40th Parliament (April 20, 2009), p. 1205 [para. 105].

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

Counsel:

D. Schermbrucker, for the appellant;

B. Land-Murphy and L.A. Whyte, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Whitehorse, Yukon, on April 29, 2014, by Bauman, C.J.B.C., Donald, and Cooper, JJ.A., of the Yukon Court of Appeal. On October 7, 2014, Bauman, C.J.B.C., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court.