R. v. MacDonald (E.), (2014) 353 N.S.R.(2d) 59 (CA)

• Judge: MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Saunders and Beveridge, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: June 09, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2014), 353 N.S.R.(2d) 59 (CA);2014 NSCA 102

R. v. MacDonald (E.) (2014), 353 N.S.R.(2d) 59 (CA);

    1115 A.P.R. 59

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.010

Erin MacDonald (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(CAC 347642; 2014 NSCA 102)

Indexed As: R. v. MacDonald (E.)

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Saunders and Beveridge, JJ.A.

November 6, 2014.

Summary:

MacDonald had residences in both Calgary and Halifax. On December 28, 2009, the police were called about a complaint of loud music coming from MacDonald's Halifax condo. The police knocked on and kicked MacDonald's door. MacDonald answered carrying a loaded 9 mm Beretta handgun. The Beretta was registered in Alberta, but not in Nova Scotia. MacDonald was disarmed. He was charged with numerous offences.

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court found MacDonald guilty of careless use of a weapon contrary to s. 86 of the Criminal Code, dangerous possession of a firearm contrary to s. 88 of the Code, and possession of a loaded restricted firearm contrary to s. 95 of the Code. The Crown had proceeded by indictment for each charge. The trial judge imposed the mandatory minimum three year sentence for the s. 95 charge and concurrent sentences for the other two offences. MacDonald appealed.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Beveridge, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at (2012), 317 N.S.R.(2d) 90; 1003 A.P.R. 90, set aside the s. 95 conviction, but sustained the convictions for the two lesser offences and adjusted the sentence accordingly. The majority rejected MacDonald's plea for a total acquittal based on his assertion that the police action constituted an illegal search, contrary to s. 8 of the Charter. MacDonald appealed on the s. 8 Charter issue. The Crown cross-appealed the s. 95 acquittal.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a decision reported at (2014), 453 N.R. 1; 341 N.S.R.(2d) 353; 1081 A.P.R. 353, dismissed MacDonald's appeal on the s. 8 issue. The court allowed the Crown's cross-appeal from the s. 95 acquittal and restored that conviction. The court remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal for sentencing and to determine whether the mandatory minimum three year sentence applicable under s. 95(2)(a)(i) of the Code was constitutionally valid.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the mandatory minimum sentence in s. 95(2)(a)(i) of the Code infringed s. 12 of the Charter, and it was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter. The court declared s. 95(2)(a)(i) to be of no force or effect to the extent that it imposed a mandatory minimum punishment of imprisonment of three years for a first offence when the Crown proceeded by indictment. The court held that it would instead impose a sentence of 18 months going forward for that offence, but stay its enforcement. The court confirmed its original dispositions for the s. 86 and s. 88 offences, both concurrent to the 18-month sentence for the s. 95 offence. Beveridge, J.A., dissenting in part, agreed with the majority on the constitutional issue, but would have imposed a sentence of time served.

Civil Rights - Topic 3829

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes - Mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences - MacDonald had residences in Calgary and Halifax - On December 28, 2009, the police were called about a complaint of loud music coming from MacDonald's Halifax condo - The police knocked on and kicked MacDonald's door - MacDonald answered carrying a loaded 9 mm Beretta handgun, which he had apparently been packing in his suitcase at the time - The Beretta was registered in Alberta but not in Nova Scotia - MacDonald was disarmed - MacDonald was convicted of careless use of a weapon (s. 86 of the Criminal Code), dangerous possession of a firearm (s. 88 of the Code), and possession of a loaded restricted firearm (s. 95 of the Code) - The Crown had proceeded by indictment for each charge - MacDonald had no prior criminal record - The trial judge imposed the mandatory minimum three year sentence for the s. 95 charge, with concurrent sentences for the other two offences - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal set aside the s. 95 conviction - However, the court sustained the convictions for the two lesser offences and adjusted the sentence accordingly - The Supreme Court of Canada restored the conviction for the s. 95 offence - The court remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal for sentencing and to determine whether the mandatory minimum three year sentence applicable under s. 95(2)(a)(i) of the Code was constitutionally valid - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the mandatory minimum sentence in s. 95(2)(a)(i) of the Code did not breach s. 12 of the Charter on the facts of this case, but that the provision infringed s. 12 based on a reasonable hypothetical, and it was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter - The court declared s. 95(2)(a)(i) to be of no force or effect to the extent that it imposed a mandatory minimum punishment of imprisonment of three years when the Crown proceeded by indictment - The court considered the trial judge's reasons and stated that its view was that the trial judge would have considered a sentence in the two-year range, but for the mandatory minimum - MacDonald had been incarcerated for 16 days (between his sentencing and release on bail pending appeal) and had served a two-year term of probation - Taking those factors into account, the court reduced the sentence to 18 months going forward - The court also considered that MacDonald had now been in jeopardy for almost five years without any trouble - The court concluded that it was no longer in the interests of justice to enforce the 18 month sentence and it stayed the enforcement of that sentence - The court confirmed its original dispositions for the s. 86 and s. 88 offences, both concurrent to the 18-month sentence for the s. 95 offence.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3829 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5805

Sentencing - General - Statutory range mandatory (incl. mandatory minimum sentence) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3829 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5871

Sentence - Possession and use or sale of weapons or ammunition - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3829 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6212

Sentencing - Appeals - Variation of sentence - Considerations - Rehabilitation of accused pending appeal - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3829 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6214

Sentencing - Appeals - Variation of sentence - Considerations - Where sentence of trial court fully or partially served - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3829 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Wiles (P.N.), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 895; 343 N.R. 201; 240 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 763 A.P.R. 1; 2005 SCC 84, refd to. [para. 9].

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. 10].

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. 12].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Felawka, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 199; 159 N.R. 50; 33 B.C.A.C. 241; 54 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Cromwell (Y.M.) (2005), 238 N.S.R.(2d) 17; 757 A.P.R. 17; 2005 NSCA 137, refd to. [paras. 20, 131].

R. v. Smickle (L.), [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 602; 2012 ONSC 602, revd. (2013), 311 O.A.C. 288; 2013 ONCA 678, consd. [para. 20].

R. v. Nur (H.), [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 4874; 2011 ONSC 4874, revd. (2013), 311 O.A.C. 244; 2013 ONCA 677, leave to appeal granted [2014] S.C.C.A. No. 17, consd. [paras. 20, 95].

R. v. Smickle (L.) (2014), 317 O.A.C. 196; 2014 ONCA 49, refd to. para. 23].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Cuerrier (H.G.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 371; 229 N.R. 279; 111 B.C.A.C. 1; 181 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. J.A., [2011] 2 S.C.R. 440; 417 N.R. 1; 2011 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Knockwood (S.J.) (2009), 283 N.S.R.(2d) 156; 900 A.P.R. 156; 2009 NSCA 98, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Best (C.A.) (2012), 315 N.S.R.(2d) 243; 998 A.P.R. 243; 2012 NSCA 34, consd. [para. 58].

R. v. Hawkins (H.J.) (2011), 298 N.S.R.(2d) 53; 945 A.P.R. 53; 2011 NSCA 7, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Bernard (A.) (2011), 303 N.S.R.(2d) 384; 957 A.P.R. 384; 2011 NSCA 53, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Brunet (R.) (2010), 271 O.A.C. 25; 2010 ONCA 781, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. MacDonald (K.) (2009), 236 Man.R.(2d) 239; 448 W.A.C. 239; 2009 MBCA 36, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Provost (C.J.) (2006), 256 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 205; 773 A.P.R. 205; 2006 NLCA 30, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Rezaie (M.) (1996), 96 O.A.C. 268; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Shropshire (M.T.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227; 188 N.R. 284; 65 B.C.A.C. 37; 106 W.A.C. 37, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. McDonnell (T.E.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948; 210 N.R. 241; 196 A.R. 321; 141 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. G.W., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 597; 247 N.R. 135; 181 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 139; 550 A.P.R. 139, refd to. [para. 107].

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. 108].

R. v. Nasogaluak (L.M.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206; 398 N.R. 107; 474 A.R. 88; 479 W.A.C. 88; 2010 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 108].

Workers' Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Martin et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; 310 N.R. 22; 217 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 683 A.P.R. 301, refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Ferguson (M.E.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96; 371 N.R. 231; 425 A.R. 79; 418 W.A.C. 79; 2008 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 118].

R. v. Scales (J.C.), [2001] B.C.T.C. 1693; 2001 BCSC 1693, refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Snobelen, [2008] O.J. No. 6021 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Beaman (R.A.) (2010), 356 N.B.R.(2d) 385; 919 A.P.R. 385; 2010 NBQB 103, refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Kurkcuoglu (V.K.), [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 633; 2010 BCSC 633., refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Tessman (T.), [2010] A.R. Uned. 509; 2010 ABPC 184, refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Carbone, 2012 ONCJ 22, refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Gardner, 2013 QCCQ 318, refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Laponsee, 2013 ONCJ 295, refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Adamo (M.P.) (2013), 296 Man.R.(2d) 245; 2013 MBQB 225, refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Ball (A.T.) (2014), 353 B.C.A.C. 178; 603 W.A.C. 178; 2014 BCCA 120, refd to. [para. 130].

R. v. A.N. (2011), 300 N.S.R.(2d) 282; 950 A.P.R. 282; 2011 NSCA 21, refd to. [para. 131].

R. v. Borecky (T.E.), (2013), 336 B.C.A.C. 255; 574 W.A.C. 225; 2013 BCCA 163, refd to. [para. 133].

R. v. Batisse (2009), 93 O.R.(3d) 643 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 152].

R. v. Liwyj (A.E.) (2011), 415 N.R. 143; 2010 CMAC 6, refd to. [para. 155].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 7]; sect. 12 [para. 1].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 95 [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ruby, Clayton C., Sentencing (7th Ed. 2008), §§ 23.622, 23.625 [para. 84].

Counsel:

Hersh Wolch, Q.C., for the appellant;

Jennifer A. MacLellan, for the respondent;

Patricia MacPhee, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada.

This appeal was heard on June 9, 2014, at Halifax, N.S., before MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Saunders and Beveridge, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on November 6, 2014, including the following opinions:

MacDonald, C.J.N.S. (Saunders, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 62;

Beveridge, J.A., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 63 to 156.