R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (No. 2), (2000) 259 N.R. 95 (SCC)

• Judge: Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 29, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (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

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.