R. v. McDonald (C.), (1998) 111 O.A.C. 25 (CA)

• Judge: Labrosse, Rosenberg and Borins, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: April 09, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 111 O.A.C. 25 (CA);1998 CanLII 13327 (ON CA);1998 CanLII 13327 (NS CA);40 OR (3d) 641;127 CCC (3d) 57;17 CR (5th) 1;[1998] OJ No 2990 (QL);111 OAC 25;39 WCB (2d) 217;54 CRR (2d) 189

R. v. McDonald (C.) (1998), 111 O.A.C. 25 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.052

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Chad McDonald (applicant/appellant) and Attorney General of Canada (intervener)

(C27613)

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

Ontario Court of Appeal

Labrosse, Rosenberg and Borins, JJ.A.

July 21, 1998.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to using a firearm during commission of a robbery. The accused challenged the constitutionality of the minimum sentence of four years man­dated by s. 344(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Provincial Court held that s. 344(a) was constitutional and imposed a four year sentence. The accused appealed again raising the constitutionality of s. 344(a), claiming that the four year minimum sen­tence constituted cruel and unusual punish­ment contrary to s. 12 of the Charter. The accused argued further that even if s. 344(a) was constitutional, it was open to the trial judge to have sentenced the accused to less than four years to take into account his six and a half months' pre-sentence custody in accordance with s. 719(3) of the Code.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The court held that s. 344(a) was constitutional. However, the court reduced the sentence to three years' imprisonment to give credit for pre-sentence custody.

Civil Rights - Topic 3821

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes - General - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the analysis to be undertaken where a provi­sion is chal­lenged under s. 12 of the Char­ter - See paragraphs 15 and 16.

Civil Rights - Topic 3829

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes - Mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences - Section 344(a) of the Criminal Code mandated a mini­mum four year sentence for a person who committed robbery while using a firearm - Section 719(3) provided that in determin­ing sen­tence the court may take into account any time spent in custody by the person as a result of the offence - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 719(3) allowed a sentencing court to deduct time spent in pre-sentence custody from the four-year punishment prescribed by s. 344(a) - Interpreted in this manner, s. 344(a) did not infringe s. 12 of the Charter - Absent that interpretation, the court would have found that s. 344(a) violated s. 12 - The court stated further that a consti­tutional exemption as a rem­edy was not available where a minimum definite sen­tencing provision was attacked under s. 12 of the Charter - See para­graphs 1 to 93.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.8

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Statute deemed inapplicable (incl. doctrine of constitutional exemption) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3829 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5805

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

Criminal Law - Topic 5805

Sentencing - Statutory range mandatory (incl. mandatory minimum sentence) - The accused pleaded guilty to using a firearm during commission of a robbery and was sen­tenced to the mandatory minimum four years under s. 344(a) of the Criminal Code - The accused appealed, arguing that s. 344(a) was contrary to s. 12 of the Charter and in any event, it was open to the trial judge to have sentenced the accused to less than four years to take into account his six and a half months' pre-sentence custody in accordance with s. 719(3) of the Code - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 344(a) was constitutional - However, the court reduced the sen­tence to three years' imprisonment to give credit for pre-sen­tence custody - The court saw no reason to depart from the generally accepted practice of giving credit of two days for each day of pre-sentence custody - See paragraphs 1 to 93.

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.2

Sentencing - Considerations - Time already served - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 5805 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5855

Sentence - Robbery - [See second Crimi­nal Law - Topic 5805 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [paras. 15, 91].

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. 15].

R. v. Lapierre (1998), 123 C.C.C.(3d) 332 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Wust (L.W.) (1998), 107 B.C.A.C. 130; 174 W.A.C. 130 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (1998), 167 N.S.R.(2d) 43; 502 A.P.R. 43 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. McIntosh (B.B.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686; 178 N.R. 161; 79 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 21].

Marcotte v. Canada (Deputy Attorney General), [1976] 1 S.C.R. 108; 3 N.R. 613, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Sloan (1947), 87 C.C.C. 198 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Rezaie (M.) (1996), 96 O.A.C. 268; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Sanchez, [1996] O.J. No. 7 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Alain (1997), 119 C.C.C.(3d) 177 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Brown (1976), 36 C.R.N.S. 246 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 39, 91].

Toronto Railway Co. v. Paget (1909), 42 S.C.R. 488, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Pearson (E.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 665; 144 N.R. 243; 52 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Wooff (1973), 14 C.C.C.(2d) 396 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Altrincham Electric Supply Ltd. v. Sale Urban District Council (1936), 154 L.T. 379 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 53].

Estabrooks Pontiac Buick Ltd., Re (1982), 44 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 116 A.P.R. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Hills v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 513; 84 N.R. 86, refd to. [para. 61].

Da­vidson v. Slaight Communi­cations Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Morales (M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711; 144 N.R. 176, addendum 147 N.R. 335; 51 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 63].

Steele v. Mountain Institution, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1385; 121 N.R. 198, refd to. [para. 68].

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. 72].

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. 72].

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. 85].

R. v. Kelly, Payne and Kelly (1990), 41 O.A.C. 32; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 497 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Shand (1976), 29 C.C.C.(2d) 199 (Ont. Co. Ct.), revsd. (1976), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 23 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Guiller (1985), 48 C.R.(3d) 226 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 91].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 12 [para. 14].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 344(a) [para. 13]; sect. 719(1), sect. 719(2) [para. 22]; sect. 719(3) [paras. 12, 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Canadian Sentencing Commission Report, Sentencing Reform A Canadian Approach (1987), p. 111 [para. 46].

Canada, Report of the Canadian Commit­tee on Corrections: Towards Unity: Crim­inal Justice and Corrections (March 31, 1969), generally [para. 35].

Friedland, Martin L., Detention Before Trial, A Study of Criminal Cases Tried in the Toronto Magistrates' Court (1965), pp. 104, 105, 108 [para. 32].

Scollin, John, The Bail Reform Act: An Analysis of Amendments to the Criminal Code Related to Bail and Arrest (1972), p. 91 [para. 37].

Trotter, The Law of Bail in Canada (1992), p. 28 [para. 33].

Counsel:

Leslie C. Pringle, for the appellant;

David Finley, for the respondent;

Gordon S. Campbell and Peter A. Vita, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on April 9, 1998, before Labrosse, Rosenberg and Borins, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was released on July 21, 1998, including the following opinions:

Rosenberg, J.A. (Labrosse, J.A., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 1 to 89;

Borins, J.A., concurring - see paragraphs 90 to 93.