R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (No. 2)
| Jurisdiction | Federal Jurisdiction (Canada) |
| Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
| Judge | Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ. |
| Citation | (2000), 259 N.R. 95 (SCC),2000 SCC 39,[2000] 2 SCR 90,AZ-50078897,191 DLR (4th) 86,148 CCC (3d) 1,36 CR (5th) 85,259 NR 95,[2000] CarswellNS 255,JE 2000-1844,[2000] SCJ No 39 (QL),187 NSR (2d) 1,47 WCB (2d) 231,585 APR 1,77 CRR (2d) 259 |
| Date | 29 September 2000 |
R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (2000), 259 N.R. 95 (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: [2000] N.R. TBEd. SE.013
Marty Lorraine Morrisey (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General for Ontario, The Attorney General of Manitoba and The Attorney General of British Columbia (intervenors)
(26703; 2000 SCC 39)
Indexed As: R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (No. 2)
Supreme Court of Canada
Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ.
September 29, 2000.
Summary:
The accused pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death contrary to s. 220 of the Criminal Code and pointing a firearm (s. 86(1)). Section 220(a) mandated a minimum sentence of four years' imprisonment where a firearm was involved.
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported 154 N.S.R.(2d) 278; 452 A.P.R. 278, held that s. 220(a) was unconstitutional because it constituted cruel and unusual treatment or punishment contrary to s. 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter. The court sentenced the accused to two years' imprisonment for criminal negligence causing death and a consecutive sentence of one year's imprisonment for pointing a firearm. The court also imposed a lifetime firearms prohibition order under s. 100 of the Criminal Code. The federal Crown appealed on the ground that it was not given notice of the constitutional challenge, as required.
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 160 N.S.R.(2d) 13; 473 A.P.R. 13, allowed the appeal, set aside the sentence imposed at trial and remitted the matter for sentencing and resolution of the constitutional challenge.
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported 161 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 477 A.P.R. 91, affirmed its earlier decision that s. 220 violated s. 12 of the Charter and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence originally imposed. The Crown appealed.
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 167 N.S.R.(2d) 43; 502 A.P.R. 43, allowed the appeal. The minimum sentence under s. 220(a) did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter. The court substituted the minimum sentence of four years' imprisonment. The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, per Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., dismissed the appeal, except for a downward adjustment to reflect credit for pretrial custody. The minimum sentence was not grossly disproportionate for this offender or any reasonable hypothetical offender. Arbour and McLachlin, JJ., concurring in the result, agreed that the minimum sentence was not grossly disproportionate for this offender, but were unwilling to preclude the existence of a reasonable hypothetical offender to which a four year minimum sentence would be grossly disproportionate.
Civil Rights - Topic 3829
Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes - Mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences - Section 220(a) of the Criminal Code provided that where the offence of criminal negligence causing death was committed using a firearm there was a mandatory minimum sentence of four years' imprisonment - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that s. 220(a) did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment contrary to s. 12 of the Charter - The four year minimum sentence was not a grossly disproportionate sentence for this offender or for any reasonable hypothetical offender - A conviction under s. 220(a) required proof of a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others (high threshold), precluding a conviction for accidents - The court held that an accused was entitled to a one year reduction in the minimum four year sentence to reflect credit for five months' pretrial custody - See paragraphs 1 to 58.
Criminal Law - Topic 5848.2
Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Time already served - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3829 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 5863.1
Sentence - Criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3829 ].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 97, consd. [para. 2].
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, consd. [para. 2].
R. v. Wust (L.W.) et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 455; 252 N.R. 332; 134 B.C.A.C. 236; 219 W.A.C. 236, refd to. [para. 2].
R. v. Lefthand (1981), 31 A.R. 459 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 9].
R. v. J.C. (1992), 58 O.A.C. 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].
R. v. Bell (T.E.) (1992), 17 B.C.A.C. 36; 29 W.A.C. 36 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].
R. v. Saswirsky (1981), 6 W.C.B. 344 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 9].
R. v. Anderson, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 265; 105 N.R. 143, refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Davis, [1985] B.C.J. No. 1732 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. Morehouse (1982), 38 N.B.R.(2d) 367; 100 A.P.R. 367 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. McCrea, [1970] 3 C.C.C. 77 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].
R. v. Weber, [1973] 1 W.W.R. 262 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].
R. v. Stewart, [1993] O.J. No. 954 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 23].
R. v. O.D. (1986), 1 W.C.B.(2d) 42 (Ont. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 25].
R. v. Luxton, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 711; 112 N.R. 193; 111 A.R. 161; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Kumar (R.) (1993), 36 B.C.A.C. 81; 58 W.A.C. 81; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].
R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 36].
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. 41].
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, refd to. [para. 41].
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. 43].
R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 44].
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. 44].
R. v. Pettigrew (1990), 56 C.C.C.(3d) 390 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].
R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 61].
R. v. Collins (R.) (1999), 99 O.T.C. 372 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 62].
R. v. Gregor (1953), 31 M.P.R. 99 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].
Steele v. Mountain Institution, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1385; 121 N.R. 198; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 70].
Reference Re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783; 254 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 70].
R. v. Wust (L.W.) et al. (1998), 107 B.C.A.C. 130; 174 W.A.C. 130; 125 C.C.C.(3d) 43 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].
R. v. McDonald (C.) (1998), 111 O.A.C. 25; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].
R. v. LaPierre (1998), 123 C.C.C.(3d) 332 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].
R. v. Mills (D.J.) (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 284; 194 W.A.C. 284; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 451 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].
R. v. Roberts (M.D.) (1998), 199 N.B.R.(2d) 387; 510 A.P.R. 387 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].
R. v. Hainnu, [1998] N.W.T.J. No. 101 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 71].
R. v. Bill (L.D.), [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. J23; 13 C.R.(5th) 103 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 72].
R. v. Bill (L.D.), [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 173; 13 C.R.(5th) 125 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 72].
R. v. Bill (L.D.) (1999), 123 B.C.A.C. 159; 201 W.A.C. 159 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].
R. v. Scozzafava, [1997] O.J. No. 5804 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 76].
R. v. Ball, [1993] O.J. No. 3207 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 81].
R. v. Ferguson, [1997] O.J. No. 2488 (Gen. Div.), [para. 83].
R. v. D.E.C., [1995] B.C.J. No. 1074 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 84].
R. v. Chivers, [1988] N.W.T.R. 134 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 84].
R. v. Deane, [1997] O.J. No. 3578 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 87].
R. v. Saulnier (1987), 21 B.C.L.R.(2d) 232 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 91].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 12 [para. 15].
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 219(1) [para. 15]; sect. 220, sect. 222(1) [paras. 15, 61]; sect. 222(4) [para. 61]; sect. 222(5) [paras. 15, 61]; sect. 234, sect. 236(a) [para. 61].
Counsel:
Malcolm S. Jeffcock, for the appellant;
Denise C. Smith and Kenneth W.F. Fiske, Q.C., for the respondent;
Graham R. Garton, Q.C., and Theodore J. Tax, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;
David Finley, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Ontario;
Deborah L. Carlson, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Manitoba;
Geoffrey R. Gaul, for the intervenor, Attorney General of British Columbia.
Solicitors of Record :
Malcolm S. Jeffcock, Truro, N.S., for the appellant;
Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Halifax, N.S., for the respondent;
Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, Attorney General of Canada;
Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Attorney General for Ontario;
Peter W. Ewert and Geoffrey R. Gaul, Victoria, B.C., for the intervener, Attorney General of British Columbia.
This appeal was heard on December 9, 1999, before Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On September 29, 2000, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:
Gonthier, J. (Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 58;
Arbour, J. (McLachlin, J., concurring) see paragraphs 59 to 95.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (No. 2)
...} .span0 { color: #000000; font-size: 12.0000pt; font-weight: bold; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; } R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (2000), 187 N.S.R.(2d) 1 (SCC); 585 A.P.R. 1 MLB headnote and full text French language version follows English language version] [La version française vient à l......
-
Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville
...(3d) 338 ; R. v. Morrison, 2019 SCC 15 , [2019] 2 S.C.R. 3 ; R. v. Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58 , [2018] 3 S.C.R. 599 ; R. v. Morrisey, 2000 SCC 39, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 90 ; Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, 2015 SCC 4 , [2015] 1 S.C.R. 245 ; David Polowin Real Estate Ltd. v.......
-
R. v. S.A. et al.
...485; 131 N.R. 1; 5 B.C.A.C. 161; 11 W.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 115, footnote 21]. 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; 191 D.L.R.(4th) 86; 2000 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 115, footnote R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al.......
-
R v Hills
...penalties for firearm offences [32] A firearm always “presents the ultimate threat of death to those in its presence”: R v Morrisey, 2000 SCC 39, [2000] 2 SCR 90 at para 43, quoting from R v Felawka, [1993] 4 SCR 199 at [33] Firearm offences address the serious potential harm from firea......
-
R. v. Sharma
...can support a sentence which is more severe while still within the range of punishments that are not cruel and unusual" (R. v. Morrisey, 2000 SCC 39, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 90, at para. 45, per Gonthier J.). Put simply, a person cannot be made to suffer a grossly disproportionate punishment simply......
-
R. v. Sharma
...(Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 331; R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46; R. v. Laberge (1995), 165 A.R. 375; R. v. Morrisey, 2000 SCC 39, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 90; R. v. Sinclair (1980), 3 Man. R. (2d) 257; R. v. Cheddesingh, 2004 SCC 16, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 433; R. v. L.M., 2008 SCC 31, [20......
-
R. v. Latimer (R.W.)
...[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, refd to. [para. 74]. 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, refd to. [para. R. v. Guiller (1985), 48 C.R.(3d) 226 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 77]......
-
Carter et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.
...313 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 299]. R. v. Demers (R.) (2004), 323 N.R. 201; 2004 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 301]. R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (2000), 259 N.R. 95; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 585 A.P.R. 1; 2000 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 303]. R. v. Dyck (A.) (2008), 236 O.A.C. 26; 2008 ONCA 309, refd to. [para.......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (August 13 17)
...Services), 2017 ONCA 667, Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9, R. v. Smith, [1987] 1 SCR 1045, R. v. Morrissey, 2000 SCC 39 Holterman v. Fish,2018 ONCA 683 Keywords: Costs, Fresh Evidence, Collateral Attack For short civil decisions, click here. Toure v. Canada (Pu......
-
Table of cases
...257, 10 C.R. (3d) 259 ........................................................................................... 165 R. v. Morrisey, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 90, 148 C.C.C. (3d) 1........................ 181, 492, 493 R. v. Morrissette (1970), 1 C.C.C. (2d) 307, 12 C.R.N.S. 392, 75 W.W.R. 664 (Sask......
-
Table of Cases
...C.C.C. (2d) 257, 10 C.R. (3d) 259, 99 D.L.R. (3d) 420, 55 A.P.R. 273, 27 N.R. 313 .............. 148 Criminal law 488 R. v. Morrisey, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 90, 148 C.C.C. (3d) 1 ........................................ 429 R. v. Morrissette (1970), 1 C.C.C. (2d) 307, 12 C.R.N.S. 392, 75 W.W.R. 66......
-
Table of Cases
...257, 10 C.R. (3d) 259 .......................................................................................... 159 R. v. Morrisey, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 90, 148 C.C.C. (3d) 1 ................................. 175, 487 R. v. Morrissette (1970), 1 C.C.C. (2d) 307, 12 C.R.N.S. 392, 75 W.W.R. 664 (......
-
Measuring judicial activism on the Supreme Court of Canada: a comment on Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. NAPE.
...* R. v. Milne, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 512 * R. v. Morales, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711 * * R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30 * * R. v. Morrisey, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 90 * R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606 * R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 * * R. v. Osolin, (1993] 4 S.C.R. 595 *......