R. v. Ferguson,

• Judge: Fruman, Paperny and O'Brien, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2006 ABCA 261
• Citation: (2006), 397 A.R. 1 (CA),2006 ABCA 261,[2006] 12 WWR 1,397 AR 1,65 Alta LR (4th) 44,212 CCC (3d) 161,41 CR (6th) 97,[2006] CarswellAlta 1216,[2006] AJ No 1150 (QL),145 CRR (2d) 309,384 WAC 1,71 WCB (2d) 55,(2006), 397 AR 1 (CA),[2006] A.J. No 1150 (QL),384 W.A.C. 1,397 A.R. 1
• Date: 25 September 2006
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

R. v. Ferguson (M.E.) (2006), 397 A.R. 1 (CA);

        384 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. SE.054

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Michael Esty Ferguson (respondent)

(0501-0001-A; 2006 ABCA 261)

Indexed As: R. v. Ferguson (M.E.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Fruman, Paperny and O'Brien, JJ.A.

September 25, 2006.

Summary:

The accused R.C.M.P. officer was convicted of manslaughter in the shooting death of a detainee. The detainee was intoxicated, belligerent and attempting to escape. The detainee grabbed the accused's gun. Following a struggle to retake the gun, the accused twice shot the detainee (abdomen and head). The jury determined that although the first shot was justified in self-defence, the second shot was unnecessary and constituted manslaughter. Section 236(a) of the Criminal Code provided a minimum four year sentence for manslaughter using a firearm. The accused sought a constitutional exemption from s. 236(a), submitting that a four year sentence would constitute cruel and unusual punishment contrary to s. 12 of the Charter.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported (2004), 372 A.R. 309, granted a constitutional exemption and sentenced the accused to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, less 210 days for 70 days of pretrial custody. The Crown appealed, submitting that (1) the trial judge misapplied the test for determining that a four year sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment, incorrectly finding a Charter rights denial and (2) there was no legal authority to grant individual constitutional exemptions from mandatory minimum sentences.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, O'Brien, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal on both grounds and substituted the minimum sentence of four years' imprisonment.

Civil Rights - Topic 3829

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes - Mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8380.8 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - Section 236(a) of the Criminal Code provided for a mandatory minimum sentence of four years' imprisonment for manslaughter committed using a firearm - The judge held that s. 236(a), as it applied to the accused, violated s. 12 of the Charter (cruel and unusual punishment) and granted the accused a constitutional exemption from the four year mandatory minimum sentence - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that even if s. 236(a) violated s. 12, the judge erred in failing to then consider whether the Charter rights denial was saved as a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter - Only after the s. 1 analysis could a remedy be granted - See paragraphs 93 to 94.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.8

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Statute deemed inapplicable (incl. doctrine of constitutional exemption) - The accused, a 19 year R.C.M.P. veteran, during an altercation with an intoxicated, belligerent 23 year old detainee who had grabbed his gun, retook his gun and shot the detainee twice (abdomen and head) - A jury found the accused guilty of manslaughter - Although the first shot was justifiably fired in self-defence, the second shot was not - Section 236(a) of the Criminal Code mandated a minimum four year sentence for manslaughter using a firearm - The judge granted the accused a constitutional exemption from s. 236(a), as a four year sentence was so grossly disproportionate in light of the accused's low moral blameworthiness as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment (Charter, s. 12) - The Alberta Court of Appeal disagreed - Four years' imprisonment, in all of the circumstances, was not "grossly" disproportionate - The offence was very serious - The judge determined the accused's moral blameworthiness to be low, when in fact it was high - The judge erred in finding that manslaughter by criminal negligence (where Supreme Court of Canada rejected a s. 12 challenge) had a higher mens rea component - The judge also erred in failing to consider the effect of parole (accused eligible for day parole in eight months and full parole in 14 months) - Finally, the judge erred in finding that Parliament did not intend that s. 236(a) would apply to police officers - The court stated that "an informed public would not consider a sentence of four years in this case to be outrageous or intolerable" - See paragraphs 41 to 92.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.8

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Statute deemed inapplicable (incl. doctrine of constitutional exemption) - Section 236(a) of the Criminal Code mandated a minimum four year sentence for manslaughter using a firearm - A police officer was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter in the shooting death of a detainee - The judge granted the accused a constitutional exemption from s. 236(a), as a four year sentence was so grossly disproportionate in light of the accused's low moral blameworthiness as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment (Charter, s. 12) - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that there was no legal authority to grant individual constitutional exemptions from mandatory minimum sentences in "rare and unique circumstances" - The trial judge, relying on minority dicta in the Morrisey case (SCC), misconstrued the minority judge's comments - Although the Supreme Court of Canada had not definitively decided whether an individual constitutional exemption was available for a person who established that the mandatory minimum sentence was cruel and unusual in that person's particular case, "the remedy still remains without precedent at the Supreme Court level and is incompatible with the current s. 12 analytical framework" - See paragraphs 95 to 147.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - The accused was convicted of manslaughter - Since a gun was used, s. 236(a) of the Criminal Code provided a mandatory minimum sentence of four years' imprisonment - The trial judge determined that the minimum sentence, in the accused's circumstances, constituted cruel and unusual punishment (Charter, s. 12) - Accordingly, the accused was granted a constitutional exemption from s. 236(a) and a conditional sentence was imposed - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that a conditional sentence was not legally available - Section 742.1 precluded a conditional sentence where the offence was punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment - The court stated that "this exclusion is offence-specific, not offender-specific. Thus, granting a constitutional exemption to an offender ... does not make the offence eligible for a conditional sentence. In order to sentence [the accused] to a term of imprisonment to be served in the community, the trial judge had to strike down s. 742.1 or s. 236(a) as unconstitutional. As he did neither, the two-year conditional sentence imposed has no basis in law and cannot stand." - See paragraphs 39 to 40.

Criminal Law - Topic 5809.3

Sentencing - General - Where factual basis for jury's verdict unclear - The accused was convicted of manslaughter - There was conflicting evidence at trial and the verdict did not reveal which facts the jurors relied on - In sentencing, the judge was required to accept as proven all express or implied facts essential to the jury's verdict (Criminal Code, s. 724(2)(a)) and was empowered to find any other relevant facts disclosed by the trial evidence (s. 724(2)(b)) - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in making fact findings that were erroneous and inconsistent with the jury's verdict - The court stated that "in an effort to respect the jury's verdict, the judge attributed other fact findings to what the jury must have found or must have thought. However, as there was conflicting evidence at trial and a number of ways individual jurors could have arrived at a verdict of manslaughter, the judge should have come to an independent determination of the relevant facts instead of attempting to follow the logical process of the jury." - See paragraphs 11 to 38.

Criminal Law - Topic 5882

Sentence - Manslaughter - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8380.8 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Ferguson (M.E.) (2006), 384 A.R. 318; 367 W.A.C. 318; 2006 ABCA 36, leave to appeal refused [2006] 358 N.R. 394 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Brown (K.F.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 518; 125 N.R. 363; 93 Sask.R. 81; 4 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Chang (J.C.) (2003), 339 A.R. 278; 312 W.A.C. 278; 2003 ABCA 293, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Ngo (D.T.) (2003), 327 A.R. 320; 296 W.A.C. 320; 175 C.C.C.(3d) 290; 2003 ABCA 121, refd to. [para. 42].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 42].

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. 43].

R. v. Latimer (R.W.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3; 264 N.R. 99; 203 Sask.R. 1; 240 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Goltz, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485; 131 N.R. 1; 5 B.C.A.C. 161; 11 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Colville (D.) (2005), 380 A.R. 360; 363 W.A.C. 360; 53 Alta. L.R.(4th) 226; 2005 ABCA 319, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. K.T. (2005), 195 Man.R.(2d) 89; 351 W.A.C. 89; 2005 MBCA 78, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. K.R.T. - see R. v. K.T.

R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Williams (H.L.), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 134; 308 N.R. 235; 231 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 686 A.P.R. 1; 2003 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Laberge (K.K.) (1995), 165 A.R. 375; 89 W.A.C. 375 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Sandercock (1985), 62 A.R. 382 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Simcoe (B.S.) (2002), 156 O.A.C. 190 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Luxton, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 711; 112 N.R. 193; 111 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 81].

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. 81].

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. [para. 87].

R. v. Wald et al. (1989), 94 A.R. 125 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Bowen and Kay (1990), 111 A.R. 146; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 515 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Madeley (K.) (2002), 160 O.A.C. 346 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2003), 314 N.R. 397; 189 O.A.C. 196 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 111].

Wakeford v. Canada (2002), 155 O.A.C. 78; 58 O.R.(3d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Desjardins (F.) (1996), 182 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 463 A.P.R. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Roberts (M.D.) (1998), 199 N.B.R.(2d) 387; 510 A.P.R. 387 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 111].

Dorval (Ville) v. Provost (1994), 66 Q.A.C. 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 111].

United States of America v. Cazzetta (1996), 108 C.C.C.(3d) 536 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

R. v. Westfair Foods Ltd. and Canada Safeway Ltd. (1989), 80 Sask.R. 33 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Chief, [1990] N.W.T.R. 55; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 265 (Y.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. McGillivary (1991), 89 Sask.R. 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Netser, [1992] N.W.T.R. 260; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 477 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

Corbiere et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203; 239 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 118].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 118].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 118].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 121].

Royal College of Dental Surgeons (Ont.) et al. v. Rocket and Price, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 232, 111 N.R. 161; 40 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 124].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Parker (T.) (2000), 135 O.A.C. 1; 49 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 130].

Osborne, Millar and Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 135].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 137].

R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 575; 279 N.R. 345; 154 O.A.C. 345, refd to. [para. 137].

R. v. Rose (J.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 262; 232 N.R. 83; 115 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 138].

R. v. McDonnell (T.E.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948; 210 N.R. 241; 196 A.R. 321; 141 W.A.C. 321; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 436, refd to. [para. 192].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 192].

R. v. Lecaine (1990), 105 A.R. 261 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 201].

R. v. Kumar (R.) (1993), 36 B.C.A.C. 81; 58 W.A.C. 81; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 214].

R. v. Walcot (M.F.) (2001), 152 B.C.A.C. 200; 250 W.A.C. 200; 154 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 214].

R. v. Birchall (R.D.) (2001), 155 B.C.A.C. 273; 254 W.A.C. 273; 158 C.C.C.(3d) 340 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 214].

Dunmore et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1016; 279 N.R. 201; 154 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 220].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Mitchell, G., Constitutional Exemptions: Is there any longer a principled case for them? (2001), p. 7 [para. 127].

Ruby, Clayton C., Sentencing (6th Ed. 2004), p. 85 [para. 161].

Thomas, Establishing a Factual Basis for Sentencing, [1970] Crim. L.J. 80, pp. 80 [para. 158]; 81 [para. 159].

Counsel:

R. Saull, for the appellant;

N.C. O'Brien, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 25, 2006, before Fruman, Paperny and O'Brien, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On September 25, 2006, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Fruman, J.A. (Paperny, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 150;

O'Brien, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 151 to 234.