R. v. Johnson (G.), (1994) 48 B.C.A.C. 93 (YukCA)

• Judge: McEachern, C.J.C., Cumming and Finch, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory)
• Case Date: February 28, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Yukon
• Citations: (1994), 48 B.C.A.C. 93 (YukCA)

R. v. Johnson (G.) (1994), 48 B.C.A.C. 93 (YukCA);

    78 W.A.C. 93

MLB headnote and full text

Regina (appellant) v. Gerald Johnson (respondent)

(YU00238)

Indexed As: R. v. Johnson (G.)

Yukon Court of Appeal

McEachern, C.J.C., Cumming and Finch, JJ.A.

June 17, 1994.

Summary:

The accused, a status Indian, was con­victed of assaulting his aunt. After conven­ing a sentencing circle, the trial judge imposed a suspended sentence and granted a constitutional exemption to the accused from the firearms prohibition under s. 100 of the Criminal Code. The trial judge ruled that imposition of the mandatory firearms pro­hibition would interfere with the accused's cultural expression and participation, thereby constituting cruel and unusual punishment contrary to s. 12 of the Charter. The Crown appealed the granting of the constitutional exemption.

The Yukon Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The court set aside the exemption, ruled that mandatory prohibition order should issue and referred the matter to the trial judge.

Civil Rights - Topic 3832

Cruel and unusual punishment - What constitutes cruel and unusual punishment - Prohibition order - Firearms - A status Indian was convicted of assault - He was given a suspended sentence and granted a constitutional exemption from the manda­tory firearms prohibition (Criminal Code, s. 100) on the basis that the imposition of the prohibition would constitute cruel and unusual punishment by interfering with the accused's cultural expression and partici­pation (Charter, s. 12) - The Yukon Court of Appeal set aside the exemption where, inter alia, the accused's hunting was not of a subsistence nature and was not necessary for his livelihood or for the sustenance of himself and his family or for the other vocations open to him.

Criminal Law - Topic 5799

Punishment (sentence) - Prohibition orders - Respecting firearms - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3832 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5809.2

Sentencing - Establishment of sentencing circle - The Yukon Court of Appeal, per Finch, J.A., discussed the use that could be made by a sentencing judge of the unsworn statements of members of a sen­tencing circle - See paragraphs 39 to 68.

Criminal Law - Topic 5809.2

Sentencing - Establishment of sentencing circle - The Yukon Court of Appeal, per McEachern, C.J., stated that "sentencing circles are not prescribed by the Criminal Code of Canada. If the judges of a court propose to use sentencing circles to assist them in some kinds of sentencing (and I do not suggest they should not), they should establish and publish rules ... so that both the Crown and the accused, and their counsel, will know the kinds of cases to be tried in this way, and precisely what they and their client may expect. It would be wrong, in my view, if the judges of a court should follow different procedures on such a common question as sentencing which is an important component of every case where a conviction is entered" - See paragraph 93.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 505

Rights - Effect of Constitution Act - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3832 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Chief, [1990] 1 W.W.R. 193; [1990] N.W.T.R. 55; 39 B.C.L.R.(2d) 358; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 265; 74 C.R.(3d) 57; 44 C.R.R. 122 (Y.T.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 21, 63].

R. v. Iyerak, [1990] N.W.T.R. 40 (N.W.T.S.C.), dist. [para. 23].

R. v. Sawyer, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 809; 174 N.R. 162; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 191, refd to. [para. 34].

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

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 50].

MacKay et al. v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357; 99 N.R. 116; 61 Man.R.(2d) 270; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 351; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 43 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 51].

Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086; 112 N.R. 362; 41 O.A.C. 250; 50 C.R.R. 59; 74 O.R.(2d) 763; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 686, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. W.K.L., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 1091; 124 N.R. 146; [1991] 4 W.W.R. 385; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 4 C.R.R.(2d) 298; 6 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 53].

Magder (Paul) Furs Ltd. et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 675; 160 N.R. 161; 67 O.A.C. 81; 107 D.L.R.(4th) 634, refd to. [para. 55].

Hy and Zel's Inc. v. Ontario (Attorney General) - see Magder (Paul) Furs Ltd. et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General).

R. v. Moses (1992), 71 C.C.C.(3d) 347 (Y.T. Terr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321; 40 D.L.R.(4th) 435; [1987] 5 W.W.R. 1; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 58 C.R.(3d) 193; 15 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 61 C.R.(3d) 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Goltz, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485; 131 N.R. 1; 5 B.C.A.C. 161; 11 W.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 7 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 8 C.R.(4th) 82; 61 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 78].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 11(i) [para. 72]; sect. 12 [para. 1]; sect. 24 [para. 33].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 100 [paras. 1, 32]; sect. 100(1.1), sect. 100(1.2), sect. 100(1.3) [para. 70]; sect. 267(1)(b) [para. 39]; sect. 482(2) [para. 93].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 35 [para. 93].

Counsel:

S.D. Frankel, Q.C., and Judith Bowers, Q.C., for the appellant, the Crown;

B. Blakley, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 28, 1994, before McEachern, C.J.C., Cumming and Finch, JJ.A., of the Yukon Territory Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on June 17, 1994, including the following opinions:

Cumming, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 30;

Finch, J.A., concurring - see paragraphs 31 to 90;

McEachern, C.J.C., concurring - see para­graphs 91 to 94.