R. v. Demers (R.),
Jurisdiction | Federal Jurisdiction (Canada) |
Judge | McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ. |
Citation | (2004), 323 N.R. 201 (SCC),2004 SCC 46,[2004] 2 SCR 489,185 CCC (3d) 257,20 CR (6th) 241,[2004] SCJ No 43 (QL),323 NR 201,JE 2004-1375,120 CRR (2d) 327,240 DLR (4th) 629,61 WCB (2d) 550 |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Date | 30 June 2004 |
R. v. Demers (R.) (2004), 323 N.R. 201 (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: [2004] N.R. TBEd. JN.036
Réjean Demers (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General of Ontario (interveners) and Tribunal administratif du Québec, section des affaires sociales, and Centre hospitalier Robert-Giffard (mis en cause)
(29234; 2004 SCC 46; 2004 CSC 46)
Indexed As: R. v. Demers (R.)
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.
June 30, 2004.
Summary:
The accused was charged with sexual assault. He was then declared unfit to stand trial pursuant to the provisions of part XX.1 of the Criminal Code respecting mental disorder. The accused applied under s. 24(1) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings or, alternatively, to have s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code declared of no force and effect under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, on the basis that it violated his rights under ss. 7, 11(b) and 15(1) of the Charter.
The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported J.E. 2002-976, refused to grant a stay and upheld the impugned provision. Since the matters at issue were not appealable to the Quebec Court of Appeal, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was sought and obtained. See 305 N.R. 398. At issue: (1) did ss. 672.33, 672.54 and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code violate ss. 7, 11(d) and 15(1) of the Charter on the ground that they deprived persons who were found unfit to stand trial of their rights under those Charter sections?; (2) if so, were they reasonable limits under s. 1 of the Charter; (3) did the application of ss. 672.33, 672.54 and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code to persons unfit to stand trial on account of permanent mental disorder overstep the legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada under the Constitution Act, 1867?
The Supreme Court of Canada, LeBel, J., concurring in part, allowed the appeal. The court ruled: (1) ss. 672.33, 672.54 and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code did not overstep the legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada under the Constitution Act, 1867; and (2) ss. 672.33, 672.54 and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code violated s. 7 of the Charter and were not reasonable limits under s. 1. The court found it unnecessary to answer the questions of whether ss. 672.33, 672.54 and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code violated ss. 11(d) and 15(1) of the Charter and, if so, whether they were reasonable limits under s. 1. The court ordered, as a remedy under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, that ss. 672.33, 672.54 and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code be declared invalid but that this declaration be suspended for 12 months to allow Parliament to make the necessary amendments. If Parliament did not make the necessary amendments within the 12 months, the accused was entitled to afterward seek a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter.
Civil Rights - Topic 659
Liberty - Limitations on - Committal of insane accused - The Supreme Court of Canada found that the combined operation of ss. 672.33, 672.54 and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code was that an accused found unfit to stand trial remained in the "system" established under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code until either (a) the accused became fit to stand trial, or (b) the Crown failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused - The court then ruled that "Part XX.1 [...] fails to deal fairly with the permanently unfit accused who are not a significant threat to public safety. Society's interest in bringing accused persons to trial cannot be accomplished, nor can society's interest in treating the accused fairly. The regime fails to provide for an end to the prosecution. Permanently unfit accused are subject to indefinite conditions on their liberty, of varying degrees of restrictiveness, resulting from the disposition orders of the Review Board or the court, who do not even have the power to order a psychiatric assessment in order to adapt a disposition to meet the permanently unfit accused's current circumstances. Thus, the failure of the regime to provide for the permanently unfit accused, combined with the continued subjection of an unfit accused to the criminal process, where there is clear evidence that capacity will never be recovered, renders the entire scheme under Part XX.1 overbroad as it relates to permanently unfit accused who do not pose a significant threat to the safety of the public" - The court then held that ss. 672.33, 672.54 and 672.81(1) violated s. 7 of the Charter and that the overbreadth of the legislation caused it to fail the minimal impairment branch of the s. 1 analysis - See paragraphs 5 to 13, 30, 31, 37 to 55, 68.
Civil Rights - Topic 686
Liberty - Principles of fundamental justice - Deprivation of - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 659].
Civil Rights - Topic 686
Liberty - Principles of fundamental justice - Deprivation of - What constitutes - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the deprivation of the liberty of an accused found unfit to stand trial pursuant to the provisions of part XX.1 of the Criminal Code respecting mental disorder accorded with the presumption of innocence as a principle of fundamental justice - See paragraphs 32 to 36.
Civil Rights - Topic 1392
Security of the person - Health care (incl. mental health) - Committal - [See Civil Rights - Topic 659].
Civil Rights - Topic 3107.2
Trials - Due process - Fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Overbreadth principle - [See Civil Rights - Topic 659].
Civil Rights - Topic 4958
Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Committal of insane accused - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 686].
Civil Rights - Topic 8344
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 659 and second Civil Rights - Topic 686].
Civil Rights - Topic 8348
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 659].
Civil Rights - Topic 8367
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2].
Civil Rights - Topic 8374
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2].
Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Declaration of statute invalidity - The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that, with respect to an accused found unfit to stand trial and who did not pose a significant threat to society, ss. 672.33, 672.54 and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code, found in Part XX.1 relating to mental disorder, violated s. 7 of the Charter and were not reasonable limits under s. 1 - The court ordered, as a remedy under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, that ss. 672.33, 672.54 and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code be declared invalid but that this declaration be suspended for 12 months to allow Parliament to make the necessary amendments - If Parliament did not make the necessary amendments within the 12 months, the accused was entitled to afterward seek a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter - The court stated that although the rule in Schachter v. Canada (S.C.C.) precluded courts from combining retroactive remedies under s. 24(1) with s. 52 remedies, it did not stop courts from awarding prospective remedies under s. 24(1) in conjunction with s. 52 remedies - See paragraphs 56 to 66.
Constitutional Law - Topic 6506
Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Criminal law -Respecting particular matters - Committal of insane accused - Section 672.33(1) of the Criminal Code provided that a court who had jurisdiction in respect of the offence charged against an accused who was found unfit to stand trial, "shall" periodically hold an inquiry until the accused was acquitted pursuant to subsection (6) or tried, to decide whether sufficient evidence could be adduced at that time to put the accused on trial - Section 672.54 provided that where a court or Review Board made a release or detention disposition, it "shall", after taking into consideration the protection of the public, the accused's mental condition, the accused's reintegration into society and the other needs of the accused: (a) discharge the accused absolutely in case of a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and the absence of a public safety threat; (b) direct that the accused be discharged conditionally; or (c) direct that the accused be detained in a hospital - Section 672.81 required that a Review Board make a yearly review of any disposition except an absolute discharge - The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the above provisions did not overstep the legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada under the Constitution Act, 1867 - See paragraphs 14 to 29.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 8, 72].
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. 8]; consd. [para. 75].
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, consd. [para. 16].
Ward v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 569; 283 N.R. 201; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 633 A.P.R. 125; 2002 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 17].
Reference Re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783; 254 N.R. 201; 261 A.R. 201; 225 W.A.C. 201; 2000 SCC 31, refd to. [paras. 17, 72].
RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 17, 72].
R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463; 157 N.R. 97; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [paras. 17, 72].
Quebec (Attorney General) v. Lechasseur, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 253; 38 N.R. 516, refd to. [para. 23].
R. v. Regan (G.A.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 297; 282 N.R. 1; 201 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63; 2002 SCC 12, consd. [para. 24].
Reference Re Validity of Section 5(a) of Dairy Industry Act (Margarine Case), [1949] S.C.R. 1; [1949] 1 D.L.R. 433, affd. [1951] A.C. 179 (P.C.), consd. [paras. 25, 72].
MacDonald et al. v. Vapor Canada Ltd., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 134; 7 N.R. 477; 66 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 26].
Ontario Public Service Employees' Union et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al., [1987] 2 S.C.R. 2; 77 N.R. 321; 23 O.A.C. 161, consd. [paras. 28, 80].
Siemens et al. v. Manitoba (Attorney General) et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 6; 299 N.R. 267; 173 Man.R.(2d) 1; 293 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 28].
Kitkatla Indian Band et al. v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture) et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 146; 286 N.R. 131; 165 B.C.A.C. 1; 270 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Pearson (E.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 665; 144 N.R. 243; 52 Q.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 34].
R. v. Charemski (J.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 679; 224 N.R. 120; 108 O.A.C. 126; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 225, refd to. [para. 35].
United States of America v. Shephard, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 9 N.R. 215; 30 C.C.C.(2d) 424; 70 D.L.R.(3d) 136, refd to. [paras. 35, 76].
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. 37].
Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76; 315 N.R. 201; 183 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 37].
R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 37].
Cunningham v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 143; 151 N.R. 161; 62 O.A.C. 243, consd. [para. 44].
R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 54].
Krieger et al. v. Law Society of Alberta, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 372; 293 N.R. 201; 312 A.R. 275; 281 W.A.C. 275; 2002 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 54].
Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, consd. [paras. 56, 70].
Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 58].
M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; 238 N.R. 179; 121 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 58].
Guimond v. Québec (Procureur général), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 347; 201 N.R. 380, refd to. [paras. 62, 97].
Child and Family Services of Winnipeg Central v. K.L.W. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 519; 260 N.R. 203; 150 Man.R.(2d) 161; 230 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 48, refd to. [para. 62, 97].
Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 405; 282 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 299; 636 A.P.R. 299; 2002 SCC 13, consd. [paras. 62, 97].
R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 63].
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 64].
R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165, refd to. [para. 64].
R. v. Morgentaler, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 616; 4 N.R. 277, refd to. [para. 72].
R. v. Hydro-Québec, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213; 217 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 72].
Di Iorio and Fontaine v. Common Jail of Montreal (City), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 152; 8 N.R. 361, consd. [para. 73].
R. v. Ritcey et al., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1077; 30 N.R. 442; 37 N.S.R.(2d) 68; 67 A.P.R. 68, consd. [para. 73].
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. of Canada v. R., [1956] S.C.R. 303, refd to. [para. 75].
R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 75].
R. v. Monteleone, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 154; 78 N.R. 377; 23 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 76].
Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), [1930] A.C. 124 (P.C.), consd. [para. 78].
Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 78].
Adler et al. v. Ontario et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 609; 204 N.R. 81; 95 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 78].
Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 206 A.R. 1; 156 W.A.C. 1; 121 Man.R.(2d) 1; 158 W.A.C. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 79].
Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203, refd to. [para. 79].
Reference Re Alberta Legislation, [1938] S.C.R. 100, refd to. [para. 80].
Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, refd to. [para. 80].
Constitutional Amendment References 1981 (Man., Nfld., Qué.), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753; 39 N.R. 1; 11 Man.R.(2d) 1; 34 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 95 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 83].
Reference Re Resolution to Amend the Constitution - see Constitutional Amendment References 1981 (Man., Nfld., Qué.).
Schneider v. British Columbia et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 112; 43 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 91].
R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 94].
R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 94].
Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 3; 223 N.R. 21; 212 A.R. 161; 168 W.A.C. 161; 126 Man.R.(2d) 96; 167 W.A.C. 96; 161 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 124; 497 A.P.R. 124, refd to. [para. 102].
R. v. Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190; 103 N.R. 282; 104 A.R. 124, refd to. [para. 102].
R. v. Bain, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 91; 133 N.R. 1; 51 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 103].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 11(b), sect. 11(d), sect. 15(1) [para. 6].
Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(27) [para. 5].
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 672.11 [para. 50]; sect. 672.33, sect. 672.54, sect. 672.81 [para. 5].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Black, Charles L., Jr., Structure and Relationship in Constitutional Law (1983), generally [para. 86].
Bobbitt, Philip, Constitutional Fate: Theory of the Constitution (1982), pp. 74 to 92 [para. 86].
Canada, House of Commons, Response to the 14th Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights: Review of the Mental Disorder Provisions of the Criminal Code (November 2002), p. 11 [para. 59].
Chayes, Abram, The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation (1976), 89 Harv. L. Rev. 1281, pp. 1282, 1283, 1284 [para. 100].
Elliot, Robin, References, Structural Argumentation and the Organizing Principles of Canada's Constitution (2001), 80 Can. Bar Rev. 67, generally [para. 86].
Laskin, Bora, An Inquiry into the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights (1959), 37 Can. Bar Rev. 77, p. 102 [para. 80].
MacKay, A.W., The Supreme Court of Canada and Federalism: Does/Should Anyone Care Anymore (2001), 80 Can. Bar Rev. 241, pp. 266 to 279 [para. 72].
Pilkington, M.L., Monetary Redress for Charter Infringement, in Sharpe, R.J., Charter Litigation (1987), pp. 307, 308, 309 [para. 104].
Raz, Joseph, The Concept of a Legal System: An Introduction to the Theory of Legal System (2nd Ed. 1980), pp. 188, 189 [para. 84].
Schneider, R.D., Mental Disorder in the Courts: Absolute Discharge for Unfits? (2000), 21 For the Defence 36, p. 38 [para. 21].
Scott, Francis Reginald, Civil Liberties & Canadian Federalism (1959), pp. 14, 15 [para. 82]; 25 [para. 84].
Shandal, Vinay, Combining Remedies Under Section 24 of the Charter and Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982: A Discretionary Approach (2003), 61 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 175, pp. 190 [para. 98]; 196 [para. 104].
Weiler, Paul C., The Supreme Court and Law of Canadian Federalism (1973), 23 U.T.L.J. 307, p. 344 [para. 81].
Counsel:
Suzanne Gagné and Stéphane Lepage, for the appellant;
Joanne Marceau, for the respondent;
Michel F. Denis and Yvan Poulin, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;
Lucy Cecchetto and Shaun Nakatsuru, for the interverner the Attorney General of Ontario.
Solicitors of Record:
Létourneau & Gagné, Québec, Quebec, for the appellant;
Attorney General of Quebec, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the respondent;
Attorney General of Canada, Montréal, Quebec, for the intervener, Attorney General of Canada;
Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario.
This appeal was heard on January 21, 2004, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on June 30, 2004, and the following opinions were filed:
Iacobucci and Bastarache, JJ. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 67;
LeBel, J., concurring in part - see paragraphs 68 to 108.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
R. v. J.J.,
...of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779; Chiarelli v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; R. v. Demers, 2004 SCC 46, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489; Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350; R. v. Singh, 2007 SCC 48, [2007] 3 S.C.R. ......
-
Hislop et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2007) 358 N.R. 197 (SCC)
...W.A.C. 161; 126 Man.R.(2d) 96; 167 W.A.C. 96; 161 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 124; 497 A.P.R. 124, refd to. [para. 88]. R. v. Demers (R.), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489; 323 N.R. 201; 2004 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 90]. Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83, re......
-
Médecins canadiens pour les soins aux réfugiés c. Canada (Procureur général),
...of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3, (1997), 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; R. v. Demers, 2004 SCC 46, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489. AUTHORS CITEDBlack, William and Lynn Smith. “The Equality Rights” in Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 4th ed., edited......
-
Baril v. Obelnicki,
...[para. 79]. R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para.79]. R. v. Demers (R.), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489; 323 N.R. 201; 2004 SCC 46, refd to. [para. Child and Family Services of Winnipeg Central v. K.L.W. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 519; 260 N.R. ......
-
R. v. J.J.,
...of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779; Chiarelli v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; R. v. Demers, 2004 SCC 46, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489; Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350; R. v. Singh, 2007 SCC 48, [2007] 3 S.C.R. ......
-
Hislop et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2007) 358 N.R. 197 (SCC)
...W.A.C. 161; 126 Man.R.(2d) 96; 167 W.A.C. 96; 161 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 124; 497 A.P.R. 124, refd to. [para. 88]. R. v. Demers (R.), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489; 323 N.R. 201; 2004 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 90]. Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83, re......
-
Médecins canadiens pour les soins aux réfugiés c. Canada (Procureur général),
...of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3, (1997), 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; R. v. Demers, 2004 SCC 46, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489. AUTHORS CITEDBlack, William and Lynn Smith. “The Equality Rights” in Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 4th ed., edited......
-
Baril v. Obelnicki,
...[para. 79]. R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para.79]. R. v. Demers (R.), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489; 323 N.R. 201; 2004 SCC 46, refd to. [para. Child and Family Services of Winnipeg Central v. K.L.W. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 519; 260 N.R. ......
-
The SCC Rules Against Prayer At City Council Meetings
...exclusion has resulted in interference with the complainant's freedom of conscience and religion. As per Syndicat Northcrest v. Anselemen, 2004 SCC 46, in order to determine whether an infringement of the freedom of religion has occurred, the tribunal must be satisfied The complainant's bel......
-
Table of cases
...[1994] 3 SCR 63, 118 DLR (4th) 469, [1994] SCJ No 77 ............................. 158, 159–60, 182–83, 188, 190, 308, 313 R v Demers, 2004 SCC 46 ........................................... 113, 135, 151, 154, 208, 301 R v Desmond, 2010 ONSC 2945 .................................................
-
Defining the Principles of Fundamental Justice
...CA, above note 48 at para 59. 75 Ibid at paras 144–57. 76 Malmo-Levine , above note 48 at para 96. 77 Ibid at para 98. 78 R v Demers , 2004 SCC 46 at para 45. See also Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Harkat , 2014 SCC 37 at para 66, quoting from page 229 of the irst edition of this t......
-
Table of cases, index and about the authors
...(2006), 79 OR (3d) 698, 206 CCC (3d) 289 (CA).................................................................261, 267, 270 R v Demers, [2004] 2 SCR 489, 2004 SCC 46........................94, 280, 316, 325, 524 R v Dersch, [1993] 3 SCR 768, 85 CCC (3d) 1, [1993] SCJ No 116.......................
-
Substantive Principles of Fundamental Justice
...that, in those instances, the liberty infringement was unconnected to the law’s purpose” [emphasis in original]). 57 R v Demers , 2004 SCC 46 [ Demers ]. Substantive Principles of Fundamental Justice 163 assault and was found unit to stand trial. The Court held that the provisions of the Cr......