R. v. Nasogaluak (L.M.), (2010) 398 N.R. 107 (SCC)

JudgeMcLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateFebruary 19, 2010
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2010), 398 N.R. 107 (SCC);2010 SCC 6;[2010] EXP 739;[2010] 1 SCR 206;206 CRR (2d) 100;315 DLR (4th) 193;[2010] 4 WWR 1;19 Alta LR (5th) 1;474 AR 88;251 CCC (3d) 293;72 CR (6th) 1;398 NR 107;[2010] CarswellAlta 268;AZ-50609170;EYB 2010-169818;JE 2010-403;[2010] SCJ No 6 (QL);90 MVR (5th) 1

R. v. Nasogaluak (L.M.) (2010), 398 N.R. 107 (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: [2010] N.R. TBEd. FE.030

Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of Alberta (appellant/respondent on cross-appeal) v. Lyle Marcellus Nasogaluak (respondent/appellant on cross-appeal) and Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Manitoba, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario) and Criminal Trial Lawyers' Association (intervenors)

(32423; 2010 SCC 6; 2010 CSC 6)

Indexed As: R. v. Nasogaluak (L.M.)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.

February 19, 2010.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving and evading police. Police used what the sentencing judge considered excessive force, which resulted in the accused suffering broken ribs and a punctured lung, which required emergency surgery. The judge ruled that the excessive force, combined with the police failure to document or disclose the force used and the failure to provide medical treatment, violated the accused's right to life, liberty and security of the person (Charter, s. 7). Although impaired driving mandated a minimum sentence of a $600 fine for a first offence and evading police usually resulted in imprisonment, the police conduct was so egregious as to warrant a reduction in sentence as an appropriate and just remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter. Accordingly, the judge imposed a 12 month conditional discharge in lieu of convictions. The Crown appealed, submitting that a reduced sentence was not available and, even if it was, a conditional discharge was not warranted.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Côté, J.A., dissenting in part, in a judgment reported (2007), 422 A.R. 222; 415 W.A.C. 222, allowed the appeal in part. The court affirmed the conditional discharge for evading police, but substituted the minimum fine of $600 for impaired driving. The court held that "a reduction in sentence may be granted as a remedy for a Charter breach where the breach mitigates the seriousness of the offence, or imposes some form of punishment on the individual that should be factored in calculating the sentence". The court stated that "while we do not necessarily agree with the fact findings made by the sentencing judge or his choice of remedy, this court can only interfere if convinced that the sentencing judge committed an error of law or principle. We are unable to conclude that he committed such a reversible error". The Crown appealed, submitting that the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge's finding that the police used excessive force violating the accused's s. 7 Charter rights. While conceding that sentence reduction might be appropriate when a Charter breach resulted in an additional form of punishment to the accused, the Crown claimed that a reduced sentence under s. 24(1) must still fall within the range of appropriate sentences for that offence . The accused cross-appealed, submitting that the Court of Appeal erred in substituting a fine for the conditional discharge. The accused argued that a court had the discretion under s. 24(1) to reduce a sentence below the mandatory minimum sentence when necessary to provide effective Charter relief.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal. The trial judge did not err in finding excessive police force and in taking the police misconduct into account to arrive at a reduced sentence. However, such a reduction in sentence was permissible on an application of sentencing principles under the Criminal Code without resort to s. 24(1). The court affirmed that the trial judge erred in reducing the sentence to one falling below the mandatory minimum sentence of a fine. The court stated that "I therefore do not foreclose the possibility that, in some exceptional cases, a sentence reduction outside statutory limits may be the sole effective remedy for some particularly egregious form of misconduct by state agents in relation to the offence and the offender. However, this is not such a case".

Civil Rights - Topic 8373

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Variation of sentence - The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving and evading police - Police used what the sentencing judge considered excessive force, which resulted in the accused suffering broken ribs and a punctured lung, which required emergency surgery - The judge ruled that the excessive force, combined with the police failure to document or disclose the force used and the failure to provide medical treatment, violated the accused's right to life, liberty and security of the person (Charter, s. 7) - Although impaired driving mandated a minimum sentence of a $600 fine for a first offence and evading police usually resulted in imprisonment, the police conduct was so egregious as to warrant a reduction in sentence as an appropriate and just remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter - Accordingly, the judge imposed a 12 month conditional discharge - The Crown appealed, submitting that a reduced sentence was not available and, even if it was, a conditional discharge was not warranted - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, affirming the conditional discharge for evading police, but substituting the minimum fine of $600 for impaired driving - A reduced sentence was available as a remedy for a Charter breach, but could not exempt an accused from a mandatory minimum sentence - Although the court would not have imposed the sentence imposed by the judge, the court could not interfere absent an error in law or principle, neither of which was present - There was no palpable and overriding error in finding that a sentence reduction was warranted - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision - The Court of Appeal did not err in finding excessive police force and a substantial interference with the accused's physical and psychological integrity constituting a breach of the accused's s. 7 Charter rights - A sentence reduction for such misconduct was available under the sentencing regime, whether or not it constituted a Charter breach, without resort to s. 24(1) of the Charter - The court affirmed that the trial judge erred in reducing the sentence to one falling below the mandatory minimum sentence of a fine - The court stated that "I therefore do not foreclose the possibility that, in some exceptional cases, a sentence reduction outside statutory limits may be the sole effective remedy for some particularly egregious form of misconduct by state agents in relation to the offence and the offender. However, this is not such a case".

Civil Rights - Topic 8373

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Variation of sentence - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the sentencing regime provides some scope for sentencing judges to consider not only the actions of the offender, but also those of state actors. Where the state misconduct in question relates to the circumstances of the offence or the offender, the sentencing judge may properly take the relevant facts into account in crafting a fit sentence, without having to resort to s. 24(1) of the Charter. Indeed, state misconduct which does not amount to a Charter breach but which impacts the offender may also be a relevant factor in crafting a fit sentence. Where the state misconduct does not relate to the circumstances of the offence or the offender, however, the accused must seek his or her remedy in another forum. Any inquiry into such unrelated circumstances falls outside the scope of the statutory sentencing regime and has no place in the sentencing hearing. Likewise, a reduction of sentence could hardly constitute an 'appropriate' remedy within the meaning of s. 24(1) of the Charter where the facts underlying the breach bear no connection to the circumstances of the offence or the offender. As a general rule, therefore, it is neither necessary nor useful to invoke s. 24(1) of the Charter to effect an appropriate reduction of sentence to account for any harm flowing from unconstitutional acts of state agents consequent to the offence charged. ... A sentence reduction outside statutory limits [eg. lower than mandatory minimum sentence] does not generally constitute an 'appropriate' remedy within the meaning of s. 24(1), unless the constitutionality of the statutory limit is itself challenged. ... I therefore do not foreclose the possibility that, in some exceptional cases, a sentence reduction outside statutory limits may be the sole effective remedy for some particularly egregious form of misconduct by state agents in relation to the offence and the offender." - See paragraphs 3 to 6.

Civil Rights - Topic 8544

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Appropriate and just remedy - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 8373 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4431

Procedure - Verdicts - Discharges and dismissals - Conditional discharge in lieu of conviction - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8373 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5801.1

Sentencing - General - Proportionality - The Supreme Court of Canada held that proportionality was central to the sentencing process - The court stated that "it requires that a sentence not exceed what is just and appropriate, given the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the gravity of the offence. In this sense, the principle serves a limiting or restraining function. However, the rights-based, protective angle of proportionality is counter-balanced by its alignment with the 'just deserts' philosophy of sentencing, which seeks to ensure that offenders are held responsible for their actions and that the sentence properly reflects and condemns their role in the offence and the harm they caused ... Whatever the rationale for proportionality, however, the degree of censure required to express society's condemnation of the offence is always limited by the principle that an offender's sentence must be equivalent to his or her moral culpability, and not greater than it." - See paragraphs 41 to 42.

Criminal Law - Topic 5805

Sentencing - General - Statutory range mandatory (incl. mandatory minimum sentence) - [See first and second Civil Rights - Topic 8373 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5846.5

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Sentence precedents (incl. starting point principle) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a sentencing judge's wide discretion "is fettered in part by the case law that has set down, in some circumstances, general ranges of sentences for particular offences, to encourage greater consistency between sentencing decisions in accordance with the principle of parity enshrined in the Code. But it must be remembered that, while courts should pay heed to these ranges, they are guidelines rather than hard and fast rules. A judge can order a sentence outside that range as long as it is in accordance with the principles and objectives of sentencing. Thus, a sentence falling outside the regular range of appropriate sentences is not necessarily unfit." - See paragraphs 44.

Criminal Law - Topic 5846.6

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Violation of accused's rights - [See first and second Civil Rights - Topic 8373 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5865.2

Sentence - Failure to stop a motor vehicle pursued by police (flight or evading police) - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8373 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5886

Sentence - Impaired driving - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8373 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6201

Sentencing - Appeals - Variation of sentence - Powers of appeal court (incl. standard of review) - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8373 ].

Police - Topic 3065

Powers - Arrest and detention - Use of excessive force - At issue was whether the police used excessive force in effecting an arrest - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "section 25(1) [Criminal Code] essentially provides that a police officer is justified in using force to effect a lawful arrest, provided that he or she acted on reasonable and probable grounds and used only as much force as was necessary in the circumstances. ... Section 25(3) also prohibits a police officer from using a greater degree of force, i.e., that which is intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm, unless he or she believes that it is necessary to protect him- or herself, or another person under his or her protection, from death or grievous bodily harm. The officer's belief must be objectively reasonable. This means that the use of force under s. 25(3) is to be judged on a subjective-objective basis. ... If force of that degree is used to prevent a suspect from fleeing to avoid a lawful arrest, then it is justified under s. 25(4), subject to the limitations described above and to the requirement that the flight could not reasonably have been prevented in a less violent manner. Police actions should not be judge against a standard of perfection. It must be remembered that the police engage in dangerous and demanding work and often have to react quickly to emergencies. Their actions should be judged in light of these exigent circumstances." - See paragraphs 34 to 35.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Regan (G.A.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 297; 282 N.R. 1; 201 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63; 2002 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Glykis (E.) and Mangal (A.) (1995), 84 O.A.C. 140 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Ferguson (M.E.) (2006), 397 A.R. 1; 384 W.A.C. 1; 2006 ABCA 261, affd. [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. 21].

R. v. Wust (L.W.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 455; 252 N.R. 332; 134 B.C.A.C. 236; 219 W.A.C. 236; 2000 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 31].

Chartier et al. v. Greaves et al., [2001] O.T.C. 121 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Bottrell (1981), 60 C.C.C.(2d) 211 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 38].

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. 38].

R. v. Solowan (K.S.T.), [2008] 3 S.C.R. 309; 381 N.R. 191; 261 B.C.A.C. 27; 440 W.A.C. 27; 2008 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Wilmott (1966), 58 D.L.R.(2d) 33 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

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. 42].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 42].

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. 43].

R. v. Hamilton (M.A.) and Mason (D.R.) (2004), 189 O.A.C. 90; 72 O.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Bill (L.D.), [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 173; 13 C.R.(5th) 125 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

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. 45].

R. v. L.M., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 163; 374 N.R. 351; 2008 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 46].

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; 2000 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 46].

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. 46].

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. 46].

R. v. McKnight (R.) (1999), 119 O.A.C. 364; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 41 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Munoz (K.M.) (2006), 411 A.R. 257; 69 Alta. L.R.(4th) 231; 2006 ABQB 901, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Pigeon (C.) (1992), 14 B.C.A.C. 139; 26 W.A.C. 139; 73 C.C.C.(3d) 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Bosley (M.) (1992), 59 O.A.C. 161; 18 C.R.(4th) 347 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Leaver (1996), 3 C.R.(5th) 138 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Panousis (C.) (2002), 329 A.R. 47; 2002 ABQB 1109, revd. [2004] A.R. Uned. 95; 2004 ABCA 211, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Kirzner (1976), 14 O.R.(2d) 665 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Steinberg, [1967] 1 O.R. 733 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Cooper (No. 2) (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 35 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Simon (1975), 25 C.C.C.(2d) 159 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Parisien (1971), 3 C.C.C.(2d) 433 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Burke, [1968] 2 C.C.C. 124 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Fairn (1973), 12 C.C.C.(2d) 423 (N.S. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Charles (1987), 61 Sask.R. 166 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Bear (L.) (1988), 72 Sask.R. 99 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. S.L.L. (2002), 229 Sask.R. 96; 2002 SKQB 425, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Foulds, [1998] S.J. No. 560 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Dennison (R.L.) (1990), 109 N.B.R.(2d) 388; 273 A.P.R. 388 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. MacPherson (N.H.) (1995), 166 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 425 A.P.R. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Zwicker (B.D.) (1995), 169 N.B.R.(2d) 350; 434 A.P.R. 350 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Carlini Brothers Body Shop Ltd. v. R. (1992), 10 O.R.(3d) 651 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Grenke (2004), 7 M.V.R.(5th) 89 (Ont. C.J.), refd to. [para. 60].

Québec (Procureur général) v. Chabot (1992), 51 Q.A.C. 39 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Mater (1988), 47 C.R.R. 351 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Pasemko (1982), 17 M.V.R. 247 (Alta. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Grimes (1987), 70 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 11; 215 A.P.R. 11 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. MacLean, [1998] O.J. No. 2515 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Pelletier (1986), 42 M.V.R. 67 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Carpenter (J.D.) (2002), 168 B.C.A.C. 137; 275 W.A.C. 137; 2002 BCCA 301, refd to. [para. 62].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Manson, Allan, Charter Violations in Mitigation of Sentence (1995), 41 C.R.(4th) 318, p. 323 [para. 49].

Roberts, Julian V., and Cole, David P., Introduction to Sentencing and Parole, in Roberts, Julian V., and Cole, David P., Making Sense of Sentencing (1999), p. 10 [para. 42].

Roberts, Julian V., and Cole, David P., Making Sense of Sentencing (1999), p. 10 [para. 42].

Counsel:

Susan D. Hughson, Q.C., for the appellant/respondent on cross-appeal;

Laura K. Stevens, Q.C., and Graham Johnson, for the respondent/appellant on cross-appeal;

Kevin Wilson and Moiz Rahman, for the intervenor, the Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada;

Benita Wassenaar, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Cynthia Devine, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

Andrew K. Lokan and Danny Kastner, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Clayton Ruby and Gerald Chan, for the intervenor, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario);

Nathan J. Whitling, for the intervenor, the Criminal Trial Lawyers' Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Attorney General of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the appellant/respondent on cross-appeal;

Dawson Stevens & Shaigec, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent/appellant on cross-appeal;

Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Attorney General of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

Paliare, Roland, Rosenberg, Rothstein, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Ruby & Shiller, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario);

Parlee McLaws, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervenor, the Criminal Trial Lawyers' Association.

This appeal and cross-appeal were heard on May 20, 2009, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On February 19, 2010, LeBel, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Court.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1446 practice notes
  • R. v. D.L.W., [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 43 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • January 10, 2014
    ...should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders." [52] In R. v. Nasogaluak , 2010 SCC 6, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the principles of sentencing and indicated that any sentence imposed, regardless of the weight given......
  • R. v. Epp (C.), 2010 SKPC 89
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • September 21, 2010
    ...SKPC 61, consd. [para. 88]. R. v. Erickson (L.D.) (2010), 353 Sask.R. 132; 2010 SKPC 38, consd. [para. 88]. 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, consd. [para. R. v. Carosella (N.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80; 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81,......
  • R. v. Nur (H.), (2015) 469 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 7, 2014
    ...1; 2009 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 116]. R. v. Snobelen, [2008] O.J. No. 6021 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 126]. 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. R. v. Felawka, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 199; 159 N.R. 50; 33 B.C.A.C. 241; 54 W......
  • R. v. Conway (P.), (2010) 402 N.R. 255 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 11, 2010
    ...Khadr v. Prime Minister (Can.) et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 44; 397 N.R. 294; 2010 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 103]. 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. Statutes Noticed: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sec......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1358 cases
  • R. v. D.L.W., [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 43 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • January 10, 2014
    ...should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders." [52] In R. v. Nasogaluak , 2010 SCC 6, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the principles of sentencing and indicated that any sentence imposed, regardless of the weight given......
  • R. v. Epp (C.), 2010 SKPC 89
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • September 21, 2010
    ...SKPC 61, consd. [para. 88]. R. v. Erickson (L.D.) (2010), 353 Sask.R. 132; 2010 SKPC 38, consd. [para. 88]. 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, consd. [para. R. v. Carosella (N.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80; 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81,......
  • R. v. Nur (H.), (2015) 469 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 7, 2014
    ...1; 2009 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 116]. R. v. Snobelen, [2008] O.J. No. 6021 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 126]. 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. R. v. Felawka, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 199; 159 N.R. 50; 33 B.C.A.C. 241; 54 W......
  • R. v. Conway (P.), (2010) 402 N.R. 255 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 11, 2010
    ...Khadr v. Prime Minister (Can.) et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 44; 397 N.R. 294; 2010 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 103]. 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. Statutes Noticed: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sec......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (November 11 – November 15, 2019)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • November 22, 2019
    ...and Freedoms, ss. 12, 24(1), Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Canada, 2019 ONCA 243, R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6 R. v. D., 2019 ONCA 897 Keywords: Criminal Law, Possession of Heroin, Possession of Heroin for the Purpose of Trafficking, Jury Trials, Jury I......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (May 3-7, 2021)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • May 10, 2021
    ...Credibility, Civil Procedure, Costs, Criminal Code, section 25(1), Wilsdon v. Durham Regional Police, 2011 ONSC 3419, R. v. Nasogaluak,[2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, R. v. Power, 2016 SKCA 29 Orillia (City) v. Metro Ontario Real Estate Limited, 2021 ONCA 291 Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Real ......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (March 2 – March 6, 2020)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • April 2, 2020
    ...Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, s. 5(3)(a), R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, R. v. Wong, 2012 ONCA 767, R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, R. v. Ghadban, 2015 ONCA 760 R. v. J.H., 2020 ONCA 165 Keywords: Criminal Law, Sexual Assault, Evidence, Admissibility, Prior Bad Conduct, ......
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 22 – 26, 2019)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • August 1, 2019
    ...and Freedoms, s 24, Criminal Code, ss. 88(2), 92(3), 94(2), 96(2), 96(3), 117.01(3), 244(2), 268(2) & 718.2(c), R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6 v. Locknick, 2019 ONCA 0625 [Watt, Tulloch and Lauwers JJ.A.] Counsel: Grad and K. Heath, for the appellant Walsh, for the respondent Keywords: Cr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
92 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Detention and Arrest. Second Edition
    • June 22, 2017
    ...290 R v Nartey, 2013 ONCA 215 ............................................................................... 150 R v Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6 .....................................................................33, 34, 37 R v Naylor (1978), 42 CCC (2d) 12, [1978] OJ No 1131 (CA) ..................
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Fundamental Justice: Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Second Edition
    • June 22, 2019
    ...351 R v Nadli, 2014 NWTSC 47 ................................................................................ 144 R v Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6 ................................................................................98 R v Ndhlovu, 2016 ABQB 595 ..............................................
  • Rights in the Criminal Process
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sixth Edition
    • June 22, 2021
    ...140. 224 R v Harrison , 2009 SCC 34. 225 Ibid at para 41. 226 R v Cole , 2012 SCC 53. 227 R v Aucoin , 2012 SCC 66. 228 R v Nasogaluak , [2010] 1 SCR 206. THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS 350 below a mandatory minimum sentence under section 24(1) of the Charter when justified as an approp......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sixth Edition
    • June 22, 2017
    ...R v Morrisey, [2000] 2 SCR 90, 191 DLR (4th) 86 ..............................................341 R v Nasogaluak, [2010] 1 SCR 206, 2010 SCC 6 ................................................349 Table of Cases 497 R v National Post, [2010] 1 SCR 477, 2010 SCC 16 ..................................
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • Endangered Species Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 6
    • Canada
    • Ontario Acts
    • Invalid date
    ...and the following substituted: (See: 2019, c. 9, Sched. 5, s. 20) 2. Any provisions of an agreement entered into under section 16, 16.1 or 19, if the agreement authorizes a person to engage in an activity that would otherwise be prohibited by section 9 or 3. Any provision of an order made u......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT