R. v. Kokopenace (C.), (2015) 332 O.A.C. 1 (SCC)

JudgeMcLachlin, C.J.C., Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateMay 21, 2015
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2015), 332 O.A.C. 1 (SCC);2015 SCC 28;[2015] 2 SCR 398

R. v. Kokopenace (C.) (2015), 332 O.A.C. 1 (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: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.031

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Clifford Kokopenace (respondent) and Advocates' Society, Nishnawbe Aski Nation, David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, Inc. (LEAF), Native Women's Association of Canada, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto Inc. (interveners)

(35475; 2015 SCC 28; 2015 CSC 28)

Indexed As: R. v. Kokopenace (C.)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon, JJ.

May 21, 2015.

Summary:

The aboriginal accused was charged with second degree murder. A jury convicted him of the included offence of manslaughter. Prior to sentencing, defence counsel learned of possible problems with the inclusion of aboriginal on-reserve residents on the jury roll, which raised concerns as to the representativeness of the jury. The trial judge, who considered himself functus officio, declined an adjournment of sentencing to permit a mistrial application. The accused appealed, arguing that his rights under ss. 11(d), 11(f) and 15 of the Charter were violated where his jury was derived from a jury roll that did not adequately ensure the inclusion of aboriginal on-reserve residents.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Rouleau, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported (2013), 306 O.A.C. 47, allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial. The accused established a breach of his right to representativeness of the jury roll contrary to ss. 11(d) and 11(f) of the Charter and a breach of s. 6(8) of the Juries Act. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin, C.J.C., and Cromwell, J., dissenting, allowed the appeal and restored the conviction.

Civil Rights - Topic 1125

Discrimination - Criminal and quasi-criminal law - Jury selection - The accused appealed his manslaughter conviction, arguing that the petit jury that found him guilty was derived from a jury roll that, because of the process used to prepare it, inadequately ensured representative inclusion of aboriginal on-reserve residents, thereby violating his equality rights (Charter, s. 15) - The accused also sought public interest standing to advance a s. 15 claim on behalf of aboriginal on-reserve residents who were potential jurors - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the dismissal of the accused's s. 15 claim, as "he has not clearly articulated a disadvantage", which was fatal to his claim - The court also affirmed the denial of public interest standing - See paragraph 128.

Civil Rights - Topic 3138

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to jury and jury selection (Charter s. 11(f)) - Section 11(d) of the Charter guaranteed an accused the right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal - Section 11(f) guaranteed the right to a trial by jury - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the right to a representative jury is an entitlement held by the accused that promotes the fairness of his or her trial, in appearance and in reality. It is not a mechanism for repairing the damaged relationship between particular societal groups and our criminal justice system more generally - and it should not be tasked with that responsibility. In my view, representativeness focuses on the process used to compile the jury roll, not its ultimate composition. Consequently, the state satisfies an accused's right to a representative jury by providing a fair opportunity for a broad cross-section of society to participate in the jury process. A fair opportunity will be provided when the state makes reasonable efforts to: (1) compile the jury roll using random selection from lists that draw from a broad cross-section of society, and (2) deliver jury notices to those who have been randomly selected. When this process is followed, the jury roll will be representative and the accused's Charter right to a representative jury will be respected." - See paragraphs 1, 2.

Civil Rights - Topic 3138

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to jury and jury selection (Charter s. 11(f)) - Section 11(d) of the Charter guaranteed an accused the right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal - Section 11(f) guaranteed the right to a trial by jury - Although the representativeness of a jury was captured by both sections, it played a different role in each section - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that, respecting s. 11(d), representativeness was restricted to the effect on the jury's impartiality - A problem with representativeness did not automatically constitute a s. 11(d) violation - Representativeness, in relation to s. 11(f), was a necessary component of an accused's s. 11(d) right to a jury trial - The absence of representativeness, a key characteristic of a jury, automatically undermined the s. 11(f) right to trial by jury - A problem with representativeness violated s. 11(f) even if it was not so serious as to undermine impartiality - See paragraphs 47 to 58.

Civil Rights - Topic 3138

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to jury and jury selection (Charter s. 11(f)) - The jury selection process took place in three stages: (1) the preparation of the jury roll, composed of persons randomly selected from the community in each judicial district (Juries Act); (2) the selection of names from the jury roll to make up the jury panels or arrays, being the pool from which trial juries were selected (Juries Act); and (3) the selection of a particular trial jury (petit jury) from the jury panel (Criminal Code) - The jury roll was prepared yearly by randomly selecting names listed on the most recent municipal enumeration - Since the municipal enumeration process did not include Indian reserves, to ensure representativeness s. 6(8) of the Juries Act permitted the sheriff to randomly select names from a list of on-reserve residents to receive jury notices - Officials took steps to obtain the names of on-reserve residents eligible to be a juror - Each municipality and reserve was sent the number of jury notices that was approximately proportionate to that municipality or reserve's percentage of the total population in the judicial district - However, because on-reserve residents were far less likely to respond to a jury notice, on-reserve residents who chose to participate in the jury selection process were at a percentage well below their percentage of the total eligible juror population - The accused's jury (no aboriginals) was selected from a 175 person panel containing only eight on-reserve residents - Although aboriginal adults on reserves totalled 30% of the adult population in the judicial district, they comprised only 4% of the jury roll - The province was dependent on the First Nations to obtain adequate lists of on-reserve residents - The problem was that on-reserve residents responded to jury notices mailed to them at a significantly lower rate than other jury notice recipients, choosing not to participate in the jury process in spite of a legal obligation to do so - To the extent that the problem was caused by the difficulty in obtaining up to date and complete lists and delivery of notices, the province made reasonable efforts to resolve those problems - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the province was not required to address any and all causes of the low response rates - There was no obligation to actively encourage responses - The constitutional obligation to include aboriginal on-reserve residents in the jury process was met by providing a fair opportunity to participate in that process - See paragraphs 93 to 127.

Civil Rights - Topic 3146

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Jury selection (Charter s. 7 or 11(d)) - [See all Civil Rights - Topic 3138 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4310

Procedure - Jury - Empanelling - [See all Civil Rights - Topic 3138 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4311

Procedure - Jury - General - Challenging the array - [See all Civil Rights - Topic 3138 ].

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3

General - Duty owed to Indians by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties, consultation duties and honour of the Crown) - An aboriginal accused convicted of manslaughter by a jury claimed that his s. 11(f) Charter right to a jury was infringed by the under-inclusion of on-reserve residents in the jury roll - The accused's jury (no aboriginals) was selected from a 175 person panel containing only eight on-reserve residents - Although aboriginal adults on reserves totalled 30% of the adult population in the judicial district, they comprised only 4% of the jury roll - The problem was that on-reserve residents responded to jury notices mailed to them at a significantly lower rate than other jury notice recipients, choosing not to participate in the jury process in spite of a legal obligation to do so - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the estrangement of aboriginal peoples from the criminal justice system and the honour of the Crown were engaged in analysing whether the province made reasonable efforts to ensure a representative jury - The court stated that: "First, the honour of the Crown and Gladue principles should not have been considered because neither is relevant to the state's obligation to make reasonable efforts to compile the jury roll using random selection from lists that draw from a broad cross-section of society and deliver jury notices to those who have been randomly selected. Second, the majority incorrectly held that the honour of the Crown was engaged simply because s. 6(8) of the Juries Act calls on the government to treat Aboriginal on-reserve residents differently for the purposes of jury selection. While it is true that s. 6(8) deals specifically with Aboriginal on-reserve residents, at bottom, it is an administrative provision. ... the honour of the Crown is not engaged." - See paragraphs 97 to 102.

Practice - Topic 221

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Public interest standing (incl. requirements of) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1125 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. A.F., [1994] 4 C.N.L.R. 99 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Fidler - see R. v. A.F.

R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Sherratt, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 509; 122 N.R. 241; 73 Man.R.(2d) 161; 3 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto et al. (1997), 99 O.A.C. 321; 33 O.R.(3d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Laws (D.) (1998), 112 O.A.C. 353; 41 O.R.(3d) 499 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Kent, Sinclair and Gode (1986), 40 Man.R.(2d) 160; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 405 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Bradley (No. 2) (1973), 23 C.R.N.S. 39 (Ont. S.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Find (K.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863; 269 N.R. 149; 146 O.A.C. 236; 2001 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Brown (L.A.) (2006), 219 O.A.C. 26; 215 C.C.C.(3d) 330 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Bain, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 91; 133 N.R. 1; 51 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 49].

Lippé et autres v. Québec (Procureur général) et autres, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114; 128 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Lippé - see Lippé et autres v. Quèbec (Procureur général) et autres.

R. v. Williams (V.D.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128; 226 N.R. 162; 107 B.C.A.C. 1; 174 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Nahdee, [1994] 2 C.N.L.R. 158 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Kokopenace (C.) (2011), 282 O.A.C. 254; 2011 ONCA 536, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Butler (1984), 63 C.C.C.(3d) 243 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Biddle (E.R.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 761; 178 N.R. 208; 79 O.A.C. 128, refd to. [para. 70].

Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] 1 S.C.R. 623; 441 N.R. 209; 291 Man.R.(2d) 1; 570 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 99].

Nishnawbe Aski Nation et al. v. Eden (2011), 281 O.A.C. 102; 104 O.R. (3d) 321; 2011 ONCA 187, refd to. [para. 103].

Pierre v. McRae, Coroner - see Nishnawbe Aski Nation et al. v. Eden.

R. v. Davey (T.G.), [2012] 3 S.C.R. 828; 437 N.R. 250; 297 O.A.C. 151; 2012 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 149].

Corbière 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. 177].

R. v. Barrow, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 694; 81 N.R. 321; 87 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 222 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115, refd to. [para. 220].

R. v. Born With A Tooth (M.) (1993), 139 A.R. 394; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 393 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 225].

R. v. Yumnu (I.), [2012] 3 S.C.R. 777; 437 N.R. 289; 2012 SCC 73, refd to. [para. 228].

R. v. Buckingham (S.) (2007), 269 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 138; 817 A.P.R. 138; 221 C.C.C.(3d) 568; 2007 NLTD 107, refd to. [para. 233].

R. v. Parks (C.) (1993), 65 O.A.C. 122; 15 O.R.(3d) 324 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 236].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 242].

R. v. Yooya (S.), [1995] 1 C.N.L.R. 166; 126 Sask.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 242].

R. v. Baker (D.) (2012), 288 Man.R.(2d) 36; 564 W.A.C. 36; 222 C.R.R.(2d) 207; 2010 MBCA 102, refd to. [para. 242].

R. v. Pan (R.W.); R. v. Sawyer (B.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 344; 270 N.R. 317; 147 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 243].

Bedford et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101; 452 N.R. 1; 312 O.A.C. 53; 2013 SCC 72, refd to. [para. 251].

Kazemi Estate v. Islamic Republic of Iran, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 176; 463 N.R. 1; 2014 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 251].

Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243, refd to. [para. 252].

A. v. B., [2013] 1 S.C.R. 61; 439 N.R. 1; 2013 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 252].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. A. - see A. v. B.

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. 253].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 253].

British Columbia (Minister of Education) v. Moore et al., [2012] 3 S.C.R. 360; 436 N.R. 152; 328 B.C.A.C. 1; 558 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 254].

R. v. W.E.B., [2014] N.R. Uned. 2; [2014] 1 S.C.R. 34; 2014 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 262].

R. v. Clark (D.M.), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 6; 329 N.R. 10; 208 B.C.A.C. 6; 344 W.A.C. 6, refd to. [para. 262].

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. 262].

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; 103, refd to. [para. 273].

R. v. Ipeelee (M.), [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433; 428 N.R. 1; 288 O.A.C. 224; 318 B.C.A.C. 1; 541 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 284].

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. 291].

Khadr v. Prime Minister (Can.) et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 44; 397 N.R. 294; 2010 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 291].

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, refd to. [para. 291].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 291].

R. v. Carosella (N.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80; 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 291].

Morin v. R. (1890), 18 S.C.R. 407, refd to. [para. 294].

McLean v. R., [1933] S.C.R. 688, refd to. [para. 295].

R. v. Bird, [1984] 1 C.N.L.R. 122 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 296].

R. v. Snow (D.A.) (2004), 191 O.A.C. 212; 73 O.R.(3d) 40 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 299].

R. v. Cameron (1991), 44 O.A.C. 278; 2 O.R.(3d) 633 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 299].

R. v. Fiddler, [1994] 4 C.N.L.R. 99 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 300].

Rojas v. Berllaque et al., [2003] N.R. Uned. 299; [2004] 1 W.L.R. 201; [2003] UKPC 76, refd to. [para. 303].

R. v. Ellis, [2011] 4 L.R.C. 515; [2011] NZCA 90, refd to. [para. 303].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 11(d), sect. 11(f) [para. 47].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1768), Book III, p. 349 [para. 145].

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1769), Book IV, p. 343 [para. 144].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Working Paper 27 (1980), The Jury in Criminal Trials, p. 5-14, [para. 220].

Ewaschuk, Eugene G., Criminal Pleadings & Practice in Canada (2nd Ed. 1987) (Dec. 2014 looseleaf update), p. 17-2 [para. 205].

Granger, Christopher, The Criminal Jury Trial in Canada (2nd Ed. 1996), pp. 114 to 117 [para. 204]; 143 [para. 205].

Iacobucci, Frank, First Nations Representation on Ontario Juries: Report of the Independent Review Conducted by the Honourable Frank Iacobucci (2013), pp. 150 to 174 [para. 165]; 209 [paras. 126, 279]; 210 to 230 [para. 279].

Manitoba, Public Inquiry into the Administration of Justice and Aboriginal People, Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba (1991), vol. 1, pp. 110, 111 [para. 284]; 378, 379 [para. 146].

Counsel:

Gillian E. Roberts, Deborah Calderwood and Michael Fawcett, for the appellant;

Jessica Orkin, Delmar Doucette, Andrew Furgiuele and Angela Ruffo, for the respondent;

Brian H. Greenspan, Katherine Hensel and Promise Holmes Skinner, for the intervener, the Advocates' Society;

Julian N. Falconer, Julian Roy and Marc E. Gibson, for the intervener, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation;

Cheryl Milne and Kim Stanton, for the interveners, the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, Inc. (LEAF);

Mary Eberts, for the interveners, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies;

Christa Big Canoe and Jonathan Rudin, for the intervener, the Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto Inc.

Solicitors of Record:

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario; Doucette Boni Santoro Furgiuele, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;

Greenspan Humphrey Lavine, Toronto, Ontario; Hensel Barristers, Toronto, Ontario; University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Advocates' Society;

Falconers, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation;

University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, Inc. (LEAF), Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners, the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, Inc. (LEAF);

Law Office of Mary Eberts, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies;

Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto Inc.

This appeal was heard on October 6, 2014, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On May 21, 2015, the judgment of the Court was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Moldaver, J. (Rothstein, Wagner and Gascon, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 130;

Karakatsanis, J. - see paragraphs 131 to 189;

Cromwell, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 190 to 307.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • R. v. Peers (J.J.) et al., 2016 ABCA 22
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • January 14, 2016
    ...ABCA 187, refd to. [para. 22]. R. v. Lee, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1384; 104 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 24]. R. v. Kokopenace (C.) (2015), 471 N.R. 1; 332 O.A.C. 1; 2015 SCC 28, refd to. [para. Baier et al. v. Alberta, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 311; 351 N.R. 302; 391 A.R. 287; 377 W.A.C. 287, refd to. [para. 28]......
  • R. v. Martin (G.W.), (2016) 445 N.B.R.(2d) 268 (TD)
    • Canada
    • New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
    • January 15, 2016
    ...v. Barros (R.) (2014), 584 A.R. 362; 623 W.A.C. 362 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36]. R. v. Kokopenace (C.), [2015] 2 S.C.R. 398; 471 N.R. 1; 332 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. R. v. Kemp (R.R.) (2016), 368 N.S.R.(2d) 281; 1160 A.P.R. 28; 2016 NSSC 7, refd to. [para. 44]. Counsel: Avocats: Sébastien ......
2 cases
  • R. v. Peers (J.J.) et al., 2016 ABCA 22
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • January 14, 2016
    ...ABCA 187, refd to. [para. 22]. R. v. Lee, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1384; 104 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 24]. R. v. Kokopenace (C.) (2015), 471 N.R. 1; 332 O.A.C. 1; 2015 SCC 28, refd to. [para. Baier et al. v. Alberta, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 311; 351 N.R. 302; 391 A.R. 287; 377 W.A.C. 287, refd to. [para. 28]......
  • R. v. Martin (G.W.), (2016) 445 N.B.R.(2d) 268 (TD)
    • Canada
    • New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
    • January 15, 2016
    ...v. Barros (R.) (2014), 584 A.R. 362; 623 W.A.C. 362 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36]. R. v. Kokopenace (C.), [2015] 2 S.C.R. 398; 471 N.R. 1; 332 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. R. v. Kemp (R.R.) (2016), 368 N.S.R.(2d) 281; 1160 A.P.R. 28; 2016 NSSC 7, refd to. [para. 44]. Counsel: Avocats: Sébastien ......

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