R. v. Lajoie (A.), 2007 ABPC 135

• Judge: Brown, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 23, 2007
• Citations: 2007 ABPC 135;(2007), 420 A.R. 257 (PC)

R. v. Lajoie (A.) (2007), 420 A.R. 257 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] A.R. TBEd. JN.006

Her Majesty the Queen (Crown) v. Alain Lajoie (accused)

(041028572P1; 2007 ABPC 135)

Indexed As: R. v. Lajoie (A.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Brown, P.C.J.

May 23, 2007.

Summary:

Lajoie was convicted of attempting to buy the sexual services of a minor. The Crown sought a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order. The SOIRA legislation did not become law until after the date of Lajoie's offence. Lajoie submitted that the retroactive application of the legislation violated s. 11(i) of the Charter (right to benefit of lesser punishment).

The Alberta Provincial Court rejected the argument. The court reserved the final decision regarding making the order to give Lajoie an opportunity to call evidence on the issue of whether the impact of the order on him would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in building and maintaining a registry of convicted sex offenders.

Civil Rights - Topic 3765

Punishment - General - Variation of punishment after offence - Benefit of lesser punishment - Lajoie was convicted of attempting to buy the sexual services of a minor - The Crown sought a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order - The SOIRA legislation had not become law until after the date of Lajoie's offence - Lajoie submitted that the retroactive application of the legislation violated s. 11(i) of the Charter (right to benefit of lesser punishment) - The Alberta Provincial Court rejected the argument - While the Supreme Court of Canada had not heard a challenge to the constitutionality of the retroactive SOIRA provisions, it had refused leave to appeal the unanimous Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Cross (J.E.) which held that a SOIRA registration order was not a "punishment" within s. 11(i) - The proper interpretation of the Supreme Court's refusal of a further appeal was that the Court of Appeal's decision was correct - Therefore, Lajoie's Charter challenge of the legislation failed.

Civil Rights - Topic 3766

Punishment - General - Punishment defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3765 ].

Courts - Topic 12

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - General principles - Refusal to grant leave to appeal - Effect of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3765 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3090.2

Special powers - Sex offender registration legislation - Interpretation and validity of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3765 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5602

Punishments (sentence) - General principles - Punishment defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3765 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5609

Punishments (sentence) - General principles - Right to benefit of lesser punishment - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3765 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Cross (J.E.) (2005), 235 N.S.R.(2d) 93; 747 A.P.R. 93; 198 C.C.C.(3d) 395 (Prov. Ct.), revd. (2006), 241 N.S.R.(2d) 349; 767 A.P.R. 349; 205 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2006), 358 N.R. 396 (S.C.C.), folld. [para. 7].

R. v. Redhead (D.G.) (2006), 384 A.R. 206; 367 W.A.C. 206; 206 C.C.C.(3d) 315 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Aberdeen (E.B.) (2006), 384 A.R. 395; 367 W.A.C. 395; 212 C.C.C.(3d) 505 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Owusu (K.P.), [2007] A.R. Uned. 25 (C.A.), folld. [para. 9].

R. v. Jackpine (R.) (2006), 347 N.R. 201; 210 O.A.C. 200; 207 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Rodgers - see R. v. Jackpine (R.).

R. v. Hinse (R.) (1995), 189 N.R. 321; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. J.P.V., [2007] B.C.J. No. 702 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Cunningham (S.C.), [2007] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 19 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. L.S.Y. (2006), 411 A.R. 54; 69 Alta. L.R.(4th) 360 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Putrus (A.J.) (2006), 398 A.R. 18; 210 C.C.C.(3d) 280 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. G.S. (2006), 399 A.R. 195 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. M.J.L. (2006), 395 A.R. 139 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Dyck (A.), [2005] O.T.C. 1119; 203 C.C.C.(3d) 365 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Aberdeen (E.B.) (2005), 387 A.R. 269; 211 C.C.C.(3d) 131 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. L.S., [2005] B.C.J. No. 1801 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Rouschop, [2005] O.J. No. 1336 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Crane, Brian A., and Brown, Henry S., Supreme Court of Canada Practice 2005 (2004), generally [para. 14]; p. 18 [para. 19].

Meehan, E., et al., Supreme Court of Canada Manual: Practice and Advocacy (2007 Looseleaf Update), generally [para. 14]; pp. 3-2 [para. 18]; 3-3 [para. 20].

Sopinka, John, and Gelowitz, Mark A., The Conduct of an Appeal (2nd Ed. 2000), generally [para. 14].

Counsel:

G. Schorn, for the Crown;

A. Pearse, for the accused.

This matter was heard by Brown, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following reasons for decision orally on May 23, 2007, and in writing on May 25, 2007.