R. v. Conway (P.), (2010) 402 N.R. 255 (SCC)

JudgeMcLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateJune 11, 2010
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2010), 402 N.R. 255 (SCC);2010 SCC 22;1 Admin LR (5th) 163;[2010] 1 SCR 765;255 CCC (3d) 473;263 OAC 61;JE 2010-1051;[2010] SCJ No 22 (QL);211 CRR (2d) 326;[2010] EXP 1926;75 CR (6th) 201;EYB 2010-175167;402 NR 255;320 DLR (4th) 25

R. v. Conway (P.) (2010), 402 N.R. 255 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2010] N.R. TBEd. JN.014

Paul Conway (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen and person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (respondents) and Attorney General of Canada, Ontario Review Board, Mental Health Legal Committee and Mental Health Legal Advocacy Coalition, British Columbia Review Board, Criminal Lawyers' Association and David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights and Community Legal Assistance Society (intervenors)

(32662; 2010 SCC 22; 2010 CSC 22)

Indexed As: R. v. Conway (P.)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.

June 11, 2010.

Summary:

Conway was detained in various psychiatric institutions since 1984, when he was found not guilty of sexual assault with a weapon on account of insanity. In his 2006 annual review hearing before the Ontario Review Board (ORB), Conway sought an absolute discharge as a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter, submitting that the living and disciplinary conditions of his detention violated various Charter rights. The ORB dismissed the application on the ground that it was not a "court of competent jurisdiction" under s. 24(1). The application for an absolute discharge on conventional, non-constitutional grounds was also dismissed. Conway appealed both findings.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Lang, J.A., dissenting in part, in a judgment reported (2008), 235 O.A.C. 341, allowed the appeal from the conventional decision, but dismissed the appeal from the Charter decision. The ORB was not a "court of competent jurisdiction" under s. 24(1) of the Charter. The ORB, faced with Conway's treatment impasse and the possibility of many further years of involuntary detention, erred in failing to include, in its formal disposition order, which conditions, if any, should be imposed to break the impasse. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the ORB for a new hearing to determine which conditions, if any, should be imposed. Conway appealed, submitting that the ORB was a "court of competent jurisdiction" under the Charter for the purposes of granting him an absolute discharge as a s. 24(1) remedy.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The ORB was a "court of competent jurisdiction" which could grant Charter remedies under s. 24(1). However, the ORB had no jurisdiction to grant an absolute discharge as a remedy under s. 24(1).

Civil Rights - Topic 8363

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Jurisdiction (incl. court of competent jurisdiction) - At issue was how to determine whether administrative tribunals in general, and the Ontario Review Board in particular, were courts of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "it seems to me to be no longer helpful to limit the inquiry to whether a court or tribunal is a court of competent jurisdiction only for the purposes of a particular remedy. The question instead should be institutional: does this particular tribunal have the jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies generally? The result of this question will flow from whether the tribunal has the power to decide questions of law. If it does, and if Charter jurisdiction has not been excluded by statute, the tribunal will have the jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies in relation to Charter issues arising in the course of carrying out its statutory mandate. ... A tribunal which has the jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies is a court of competent jurisdiction. The tribunal must then decide, given this jurisdiction, whether it can grant the particular remedy sought based on its statutory mandate. The answer to this question will depend on legislative intent, as discerned from the tribunal's statutory mandate. ... This approach has the benefit of attributing Charter jurisdiction to the tribunal as an institution, rather than requiring litigants to test, remedy by remedy, whether it is a court of competent jurisdiction." - As to the jurisdiction to grant a particular remedy, the court stated that "what will always be at issue is whether the remedy sought is the kind of remedy that the legislature intended would fit within the statutory framework of the particular tribunal. Relevant considerations in discerning legislative intent will include those that have guided the courts in past cases, such as the tribunal's statutory mandate, structure and function." - See paragraphs 22 to 23, 82.

Civil Rights - Topic 8363

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Jurisdiction (incl. court of competent jurisdiction) - Conway was detained in psychiatric institutions since 1984, when he was found not guilty of sexual assault with a weapon by reason of insanity - In his 2006 annual review hearing before the Ontario Review Board (ORB), Conway sought an absolute discharge as a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter, submitting that the living and disciplinary conditions of his detention violated various Charter rights - The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that the ORB was not a "court of competent jurisdiction" under s. 24(1) as it did not have jurisdiction over the remedy sought based on the structure and function of the ORB and the wording of its constituting statute - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the ORB was a "court of competent jurisdiction" - The ORB was a quasi-judicial body with significant authority - It was unquestionably authorized to decide questions of law - The ORB was entitled to decide constitutional questions (including the Charter) that arose during the course of its proceedings - See paragraphs 83 to 84.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.94

General principles - Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Jurisdiction and powers - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 8363 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 93.94

General principles - Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Jurisdiction and powers - Conway was detained in various psychiatric institutions since 1984, when he was found not guilty of an offence on account of insanity - In his 2006 annual review hearing before the Ontario Review Board (ORB), Conway sought an absolute discharge as a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter, submitting that the living and disciplinary conditions of his detention violated various Charter rights - The ORB found that since Conway remained a significant threat to public safety, an absolute discharge was unavailable (Criminal Code, s. 672.54) - Conway argued that notwithstanding an absolute discharge was outside the ORB's statutory jurisdiction where he remained a danger to public safety, the ORB had jurisdiction as a "court of competent jurisdiction" to grant an absolute discharge (or an order directing alternative treatment) under s. 24(1) - The Supreme Court of Canada agreed that the ORB was a "court of competent jurisdiction" - However, given the statutory scheme and the constitutional considerations, the ORB had no jurisdiction to grant an absolute discharge or to direct the provision of a particular treatment - Those remedies would constitute a clear contradiction of Parliament's intent - See paragraphs 85 to 101.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Carter, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 981; 67 N.R. 375, refd to. [para. 4].

Argentina (Republic) v. Mellino, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 536; 76 N.R. 51; 80 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 4].

United States of America v. Allard and Charette, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 564; 75 N.R. 260, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183, refd to. [para. 4].

Gamble v. R., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 595; 89 N.R. 161; 31 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Smith (M.H.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 102 N.R. 205; 63 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 4].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 4].

Mooring v. National Parole Board et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 75; 192 N.R. 161; 70 B.C.A.C. 1; 115 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 575; 279 N.R. 345; 154 O.A.C. 345; 2001 SCC 81, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Hynes (D.W.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 623; 278 N.R. 299; 208 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 624 A.P.R. 181; 2001 SCC 82, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Menard (P.L.) (2008), 263 B.C.A.C. 167; 443 W.A.C. 167; 240 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2008 BCCA 521, refd to. [para. 4].

British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Service) v. T.L. - see British Columbia (Attorney General) v. T.L. et al.

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. T.L. et al. (2003), 73 R.F.L.(6th) 455; 2003 BCPC 293, affd. [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 105; 2010 BCSC 105, refd to. [para. 4].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 5].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 5].

Eaton v. Board of Education of Brant County, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; 207 N.R. 171; 97 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 5].

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. 5].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 5].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 5].

Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256; 345 N.R. 201; 2006 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 5].

Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc. v. Canada, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 383; 372 N.R. 370; 2008 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 5].

Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Association v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570; 118 N.R. 340, refd to. [para. 6].

Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5; 122 N.R. 361; 47 O.A.C. 271, refd to. [para. 6].

Tétrault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; 126 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 6].

Workers' Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Martin et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; 310 N.R. 22; 217 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 683 A.P.R. 301; 2003 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 6].

Paul v. Forest Appeals Commission (B.C.) et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 585; 310 N.R. 122; 187 B.C.A.C. 1; 307 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 55, refd to. [para. 6].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Quebec (Human Rights Tribunal) - see Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Que.) v. Quebec (Attorney General).

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Que.) v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 223; 321 N.R. 335; 2004 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 6].

Okwuobi v. Pearson (Lester B.) School Board - see Okwuobi v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al.

Okwuobi v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 257; 331 N.R. 300; 2005 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 6].

Cooper v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854; 204 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 20].

Regina Police Association Inc. and Shotton v. Board of Police Commissioners of Regina, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 360; 251 N.R. 16; 189 Sask.R. 23; 216 W.A.C. 23; 2000 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 30].

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Que.) v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al., [2004] 2 S.C.R. 185; 321 N.R. 290; 2004 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 30].

Vaughan v. Canada, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 146; 331 N.R. 64; 2005 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Mentuck (C.G.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 442; 277 N.R. 160; 163 Man.R.(2d) 1; 269 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 76, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Toronto Star Newspaper Ltd. et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 188; 335 N.R. 201; 200 O.A.C. 348; 2005 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 43].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 46].

Four B Manufacturing Ltd. v. United Garment Workers of America et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1031; 30 N.R. 421, refd to. [para. 54].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 86].

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. 86].

Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 498; 318 N.R. 73; 185 O.A.C. 201; 2004 SCC 20, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Owen (T.), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 779; 304 N.R. 254; 173 O.A.C. 285; 2003 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 87].

Mazzei, Re, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 326; 346 N.R. 1; 222 B.C.A.C. 1; 368 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 88].

Pinet v. St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital et al., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 528; 317 N.R. 365; 185 O.A.C. 8; 2004 SCC 21, refd to. [para. 88].

Doucet-Boudreau et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3; 312 N.R. 1; 218 N.S.R.(2d) 311; 687 A.P.R. 311; 2003 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 103].

Khadr v. Prime Minister (Can.) et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 44; 397 N.R. 294; 2010 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Nasogaluak (L.M.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206; 398 N.R. 107; 474 A.R. 88; 479 W.A.C. 88; 2010 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 103].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 24(1) [para. 19].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 672.54 [para. 89].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of, Issue No. 7, 3rd Sess., 34th Parliament (October 9, 1991), p. 6 [para. 88].

Latimer, Jeff, and Lawrence, Austin, Research Report: The Review Board Systems in Canada: Overview of Results from the Mentally Disordered Accused Data Collection Study, Department of Justice Canada, Research and Statistics (2006), p. v [para. 95].

Lokan, Andrew K., and Dassios, Christopher M., Constitutional Litigation in Canada (2006), p. 4-15 [para. 30].

Counsel:

Marlys A. Edwardh, Delmar Doucette, Jessica Orkin and Michael Davies, for the appellant;

Hart M. Schwartz and Amanda Rubaszek, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen;

Janice E. Blackburn and Ioana Bala, for the respondent, the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health;

Simon Fothergill, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;

Stephen J. Moreau and Elichai Shaffir, for the intervenor, the Ontario Review Board;

Paul Burstein and Anita Szigeti, for the intervenors, the Mental Health Legal Committee and the Mental Health Legal Advocacy Coalition;

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., Mark G. Underhill and Alison Latimer, for the intervenor, the British Columbia Review Board;

Cheryl Milne, for the intervenors, the Criminal Lawyers' Association and the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights;

David W. Mossop, Q.C., and Diane Nielsen, for the intervenor, the Community Legal Assistance Society.

Solicitors of Record:

Marlys Edwardh Barristers Professional Corporation, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen;

Bersenas Jacobsen Chouest Thomson Blackburn, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health;

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;

Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Ontario Review Board;

Hiltz Szigeti, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenors, the Mental Health Legal Committee and the Mental Health Legal Advocacy Coalition;

Arvay Finlay, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervenor, the British Columbia Review Board;

University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenors, the Criminal Lawyers' Association and the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights;

Community Legal Assistance Society, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervenor, the Community Legal Assistance Society.

This appeal was heard on October 22, 2009, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On June 11, 2010, Abella, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Court.

To continue reading

Request your trial
201 practice notes
  • TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 410 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 23, 2010
    ...v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 575; 279 N.R. 345; 154 O.A.C. 345; 2001 SCC 81, refd to. [para. 44]. R. v. Conway (P.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 765; 402 N.R. 255; 263 O.A.C. 61; 2010 SCC 22, refd to. [para. Canada (Attorney General) v. Law Society of British Columbia - see Jabour v. ......
  • R. v. Conway (P.), (2010) 263 O.A.C. 61 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 11, 2010
    ...Conway (P.) (2010), 263 O.A.C. 61 (SCC) MLB headnote and full text [French language version follows English language version] [La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise] ......................... Temp. Cite: [2010] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.058 Paul Conway (appellant) v. Her Maje......
  • Deri c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration),
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • September 2, 2015
    ...1 F.C.R. 365; Ramos Sanchez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 101, 79 Imm. L.R. (3d) 12; R. v. Conway, 2010 SCC 22, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 765; Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101; Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] ......
  • Sivia v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al., (2015) 476 N.R. 3 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • May 19, 2015
    ...99]. Wilson v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) (2015), 476 N.R. 60; 2015 SCC 47, refd to. [para. 107]. R. v. Conway (P.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 765; 402 N.R. 255; 263 O.A.C. 61; 2010 SCC 22, refd to. [para. Statutes Noticed: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 11(d) [para......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
159 cases
  • R. v. Conway (P.), (2010) 263 O.A.C. 61 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 11, 2010
    ...Conway (P.) (2010), 263 O.A.C. 61 (SCC) MLB headnote and full text [French language version follows English language version] [La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise] ......................... Temp. Cite: [2010] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.058 Paul Conway (appellant) v. Her Maje......
  • Deri c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration),
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • September 2, 2015
    ...1 F.C.R. 365; Ramos Sanchez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 101, 79 Imm. L.R. (3d) 12; R. v. Conway, 2010 SCC 22, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 765; Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101; Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] ......
  • MacLellan v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2014) 349 N.S.R.(2d) 52 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • January 8, 2014
    ...97, refd to. [para. 33]. Vaughan v. Canada, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 146; 331 N.R. 64; 2005 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 33]. R. v. Conway (P.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 765; 402 N.R. 255; 263 O.A.C. 61; 2010 SCC 22, refd to. [para. Pleau v. Canada (Attorney General) (1999), 181 N.S.R.(2d) 356; 560 A.P.R. 356 (C.......
  • Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Warman et al., (2012) 419 F.T.R. 162 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • December 13, 2011
    ...[para. 36]. Air Canada Pilots Association v. Kelly et al. (2011), 383 F.T.R. 198; 2011 FC 120, refd to. [para. 43]. R. v. Conway (P.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 765; 402 N.R. 255; 263 O.A.C. 61; 2010 SCC 22, refd to. [para. Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160; 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 23-27)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • October 11, 2019
    ...Columbia (Director of Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services), 2006 SCC 7, Campbell (Re), 2018 ONCA 140, R v Owen, 2003 SCC 33, R v Conway, 2010 SCC 22, Boucher (Re), 2015 ONCA 135, Tolias (Re), 2018 ONCA 2015, Collins (Re), 2018 ONCA 563, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health v Young, 2011 O......
  • 'Stare Decisis' And Constitutional Supremacy: Will Our Charter Past Become An Obstacle To Our Charter Future?
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • October 21, 2013
    ...W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 5th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 1998), at c. 35.5 and 36.1. 3 R. v. Conway, [2010] S.C.J. No. 22, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 765, at para. 65 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter 4 [1985] S.C.J. No. 17, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at para. 115 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Big M"]. 5 Joel Bakan,......
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (August 14-18)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • August 24, 2017
    ...of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7, Charter Remedies, s. 24(1), Constitution Act, 1982, s.52(1) (Supremacy of Constitution), R. v. Conway, 2010 SCC 22, R. v. Smith, 2004 SCC 14, Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342 For Criminal Decisions, click here. Civil Decisions E.S v. J......
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (May 4 – 8, 2015)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • May 13, 2015
    ...did not intend that the Board be empowered to order costs as a s. 24(1) remedy. Applying the two-step test articulated in R v Conway, 2010 SCC 22, the Court of Appeal concluded that introducing the potential for costs orders would detract from the Board's ability to meet its statutory manda......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
33 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Sovereignty, Restraint, & Guidance. Canadian Criminal Law in the 21st Century
    • June 25, 2019
    ...283 R v Coney (1882), 8 QB 534 ..............................................................................164–65, 169, 173 R v Conway, 2010 SCC 22 ...........................................................................................................128 R v Cooper, [1980] 1 SCR 1149 ......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Law and Mental Disorder. A Comprehensive and Practical Approach Preliminary Sections
    • June 19, 2013
    ...197 R. v. Conway, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 765 ......................................................................................................687, 691–92, 693, 700 R. v. Cooper (1993), 78 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (S.C.C.) ......................................................................................
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Mental Disorder and the Law. A Primer for Legal and Mental Health Professionals
    • June 24, 2017
    ........................ 180, 306 R v Cinous, [2002] 2 SCR 3, 162 CCC (3d) 129, 2002 SCC 29................................194 R v Conway, [2010] 1 SCR 765 ................................................................... 188, 190, 304 R v Cooper, [1980] 1 SCR 1149, 110 DLR (3d) 46, 31 NR 23......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sixth Edition
    • June 22, 2017
    ...R v Collins, [1987] 1 SCR 265, 33 CCC (3d) 1 ............................................ 345−47 R v Conway, [2010] 1 SCR 765, 2010 SCC 22............................................. 129, 426 R v Cook, [1998] 2 SCR 597, 164 DLR (4th) 1 ..............................................113−14 R......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT