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.