R. v. Nur (H.),

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Doherty, Goudge, Cronk, Blair and Tulloch, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2013 ONCA 677
• Citation: 2013 ONCA 677,(2013), 311 O.A.C. 244 (CA),117 OR (3d) 401,303 CCC (3d) 474,[2013] CarswellOnt 15898,[2013] OJ No 5120 (QL),311 OAC 244,311 O.A.C. 244,[2013] O.J. No 5120 (QL),(2013), 311 OAC 244 (CA),117 O.R. (3d) 401
• Date: 12 November 2013
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

R. v. Nur (H.) (2013), 311 O.A.C. 244 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] O.A.C. TBEd. NO.013

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Hussein Jama Nur (appellant)

(C54701; 2013 ONCA 677)

Indexed As: R. v. Nur (H.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Doherty, Goudge, Cronk, Blair and Tulloch, JJ.A.

November 12, 2013.

Summary:

The accused was charged with one count of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and accessible ammunition (Criminal Code, s. 95(1)). The Crown proceeded by indictment, and the accused elected to be tried by judge alone. The accused eventually pleaded guilty to the charge. The matter proceeded to sentencing. The accused challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum three year sentence imposed by s. 95(2)(a)(i) of the Code.

The Ontario Superior Court (trial judge), in a decision reported [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 4874, held that the three year mandatory minimum sentence did not offend s. 12 of the Charter (the provision prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment) or s. 15 (the provision respecting discrimination). The trial judge held that the scheme in s. 95, infringed s. 7 of the Charter; however, the accused had no standing to advance the s. 7 argument in this case. The trial judge concluded that a sentence of 40 months was appropriate, having regard to the mandatory three year minimum. The accused appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the constitutional issue, but affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court held that the three year minimum sentence infringed s. 12 of the Charter and could not be saved by s. 1. The court declared s. 95(2)(a)(i) to be of no force and effect to the extent that it imposed a mandatory three year minimum term of imprisonment when the Crown proceeded by indictment. The court agreed with the trial judge that the three year minimum did not offend s. 15. The court disagreed with the trial judge's s. 7 analysis and opined that s. 7 was not violated.

Editor's Note: This appeal was heard together with five other appeals: See R. v. Charles (S.) (2013), 311 O.A.C. 316; 2013 ONCA 681, R. v. Smickle (L.) (2013), 311 O.A.C. 288; 2013 ONCA 678, R. v. Chambers (I.J.) (2013), 311 O.A.C. 307; 2013 ONCA 680, R. v. Rocheleau (M.) (2013), 311 O.A.C. 295; 2013 ONCA 679; and R. v. Meszaros (F.) (2013), 311 O.A.C. 335; 2013 ONCA 682.

Civil Rights - Topic 646

Liberty - Limitations on - Prisoners and imprisonment - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 1410 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1038

Discrimination - Race and national or ethnic origin - Criminal matters - Mandatory minimum sentences - Section 95(1) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to be in possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm and readily accessible ammunition without a licence - Section 95(2)(a)(i) imposed a mandatory minimum three year sentence if the Crown proceeded by indictment on a s. 95(1) charge - An accused argued that while the legislation was facially neutral, it had a disproportionate impact on black males because of the high rate of s. 95 charges in the black community in Toronto and, therefore, had discriminatory effects - The trial judge rejected the s. 15 argument because the judge was not satisfied that the sentencing provisions in s. 95 itself were the cause of any discriminatory effect or disproportionate impact on blacks - Those causes and effects existed independently of the legislative provisions - The accused appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected this ground of appeal, agreeing with the analysis and conclusion of the trial judge - There was no breach of s. 15 - See paragraph 182.

Civil Rights - Topic 1410

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Minimum sentences - Section 95(1) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to be in possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm and readily accessible ammunition without a licence - If the Crown proceeded by indictment, an accused was liable to a three year mandatory minimum penalty (s. 95(2)(a)(i)) - If the Crown proceeded summarily, the accused was liable to a one year maximum penalty (s. 95(2)(b)) - Consequently, regardless of how the Crown proceeded, an accused could not receive a jail sentence of between one year plus one day and three years less one day - An accused argued that the two year gap in the sentencing provisions in s. 95(2) violated s. 7 of the Charter (i.e., the provision limited an individual's liberty in an arbitrary manner and was contrary to the principles of fundamental justice) - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected that argument - See paragraphs 183 to 204.

Civil Rights - Topic 1410

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Minimum sentences - Section 95(1) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to be in possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm and readily accessible ammunition without a licence - If the Crown proceeded by indictment, an accused was liable to a three year mandatory minimum penalty (s. 95(2)(a)(i)) - If the Crown proceeded summarily, the accused was liable to a one-year maximum penalty (s. 95(2)(b)) - At issue was whether the s. 95 scheme that combined the creation of a hybrid offence with a minimum penalty applicable if the Crown proceeded by indictment was contrary to s. 7 - It was submitted that the s. 95 scheme offended s. 7, because the Crown did not have to explain its election to proceed by indictment and because it allowed the Crown by electing to proceed by indictment to effectively chose the sentence to be imposed - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected both submissions - Crown discretion was a longstanding and essential component of the fair and efficient operation of the criminal justice system - The court noted that its ruling did not mean that the Crown's election as to mode of proceeding was beyond Charter review in all cases - See paragraphs 188 to 196.

Civil Rights - Topic 3821

Cruel or unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed what constituted "cruel and unusual" punishment within the meaning of s. 12 of the Charter - The court stated, inter alia, that "The words 'cruel and unusual' have a long constitutional pedigree and are used together as 'a compendious expression of a norm' to describe a punishment that is so beyond what would be proper or proportionate punishment as to be grossly disproportionate ..." - The court elaborated on the gross disproportionality standard and the justification for that standard - See paragraphs 64 to 74.

Civil Rights - Topic 3829

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes - Mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences - Section 95(1) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to be in possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm and readily accessible ammunition without a licence - At issue was whether s. 95(2)(a)(i) of the Code, which imposed a three year mandatory minimum sentence for a first offence under s. 95(1) where the Crown proceeded by indictment, was contrary to s. 12 of the Charter - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the three year mandatory minimum upon conviction for a s. 95(1) offence constituted cruel and unusual punishment contrary to s. 12 of the Charter - Section 95(2)(a)(i) could not be saved by s. 1 - The court declared s. 95(2)(a)(i) to be of no force and effect to the extent that it imposed a mandatory three year minimum term of imprisonment when the Crown proceeded by indictment - See paragraphs 24 and 59 to 181 and 207.

Civil Rights - Topic 3829

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes - Mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that "Simply because mandatory minimums restrict judicial discretion, long the centrepiece of the sentencing process in Canada, does not mean that they offend the constitutional norm in s. 12. As with any other constitutional challenge, the onus of proof rests on the party alleging the Charter violation" - See paragraph 69.

Civil Rights - Topic 3829

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes - Mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the two step analysis to be used in determining whether a mandatory minimum sentence was grossly disproportionate such as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment - The court stated that "A claim that a mandatory minimum sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is tested in two ways. First, the court must decide whether the punishment is grossly disproportionate as applied to the accused before the court. This particularized inquiry asks whether the mandatory minimum is a grossly disproportionate punishment for the particular accused in the particular circumstances ... If the sentence survives the particularized inquiry, the court goes on to decide whether the sentence is grossly disproportionate when applied to reasonable hypotheticals ... If a minimum penalty fails either the particularized or reasonable hypothetical component of the gross disproportionality inquiry, the provision, assuming it cannot be 'saved' by s. 1 of the Charter, will be found to violate s. 12 ..." - See paragraphs 75 to 77.

Civil Rights - Topic 3829

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes - Mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that "... it is now established that if a mandatory minimum sentence violates s. 12, the remedy lies under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The offending provision to the extent that it is inconsistent with s. 12 will be of 'no force or effect' and will be struck down. A more narrow case-specific remedy in the form of a constitutional exemption applicable to the individual accused is not an available remedy ..." - See paragraph 77.

Civil Rights - Topic 3829

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes - Mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the two step analysis to be used in determining whether a mandatory minimum sentence was grossly disproportionate such as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment - The court stated that a number of factors may inform the gross disproportionality analysis - The court listed the factors identified in the case law and discussed those factors in detail - See paragraphs 78 to 103.

Civil Rights - Topic 3829

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes - Mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that a challenge to a law under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, did not depend on whether the challenged provision offended the rights of the claimant - Thus, a s. 52 challenge respecting the constitutionality of a mandatory minimum sentence required the court to consider potential fact situations other than those presented in the individual case (i.e., use a reasonable hypothetical methodology) - The court elaborated on the evolution and application of that methodology - The court concluded that, "... after Morrisey [SCC 2000] and Goltz [SCC 1991], a reasonable hypothetical is one that operates at a general level to capture conduct that includes all the essential elements of the offence that trigger the mandatory minimum, but no more. Characteristics of individual offenders, be they aggravating or mitigating, are not part of the reasonable hypothetical analysis. It flows from Morrisey that the broader the description of the offence in the provision creating the offence, the wider the range of reasonable hypotheticals" - See paragraphs 110 to 142.

Civil Rights - Topic 3829

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes - Mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences - The Criminal Code, s. 95(1), made it an offence to be in possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm and readily accessible ammunition without a licence - At issue was whether s. 95(2)(a)(i), which imposed a three year mandatory minimum sentence for a first offence under s. 95(1), constituted cruel and unusual punishment (Charter, s. 12) - The Ontario Court of Appeal applied a two-step analysis - First, the court determined that the mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate when applied to the offender in this case - Secondly, the court considered whether the sentence was grossly disproportionate when applied to reasonable hypotheticals - The court determined what constituted a reasonable hypothetical for purposes of analyzing whether s. 95 was contrary to s. 12 - Here, the three year mandatory minimum was grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offence described in the court's reasonable hypothetical - A comparison of the s. 95 mandatory minimum sentence with the sentences available for related crimes (e.g., ss. 92 and 93), confirmed the court's view on gross disproportionality - The three year mandatory minimum upon conviction for a s. 95(1) offence constituted cruel and unusual punishment - See paragraphs 104 to 109 and 143 to 176.

Civil Rights - Topic 3829

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes - Mandatory minimum and consecutive sentences - The Criminal Code, s. 95(1), made it an offence to be in possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm and readily accessible ammunition without a licence - At issue was whether s. 95(2)(a)(i) which imposed a three year mandatory minimum sentence for a first offence under s. 95(1), constituted cruel and unusual punishment (Charter, s. 12) - The Ontario Court of Appeal determined that the three year mandatory minimum upon conviction for a s. 95(1) offence constituted cruel and unusual punishment - Given the very high bar set for a finding that a sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment, the court found it very difficult to imagine how a sentence that cleared that high bar could ever qualify as a reasonable limit demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society (Charter, s. 1) - The court stated that if an argument could be made that could justify sheltering a sentence that amounted to cruel and unusual punishment under s. 1, the court had not heard it - The mandatory minimum penalty of three years imposed under s. 95(2)(a) could not be saved by s. 1 - See paragraphs 177 to 181.

Civil Rights - Topic 5652

Equality and protection of the law - Particular cases - Minimum sentences - [ Civil Rights - Topic 1038 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

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

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.8

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

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.14

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Severance of portion of statute or section - [See first and fourth Civil Rights - Topic 3829 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1175

Offences against public order - Firearms - Careless use, transportation, carrying, storage, etc., of firearm (incl. elements of offence) - Section 95(1) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to be in possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm and readily accessible ammunition without a licence - Section 95(2)(a)(i) imposed a mandatory minimum three year sentence if the Crown proceeded by indictment on a s. 95(1) charge - The Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed the elements of the s. 95 offence - The court also discussed the scope and purpose of s. 95 - See paragraphs 46 to 58.

Criminal Law - Topic 5805

Sentencing - General - Statutory range mandatory (incl. mandatory minimum sentence) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1038 , both Civil Rights - Topic 1410 and first Civil Rights - Topic 3829 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.20

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Use or possession of firearms - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1038 , both Civil Rights - Topic 1410 and first Civil Rights - Topic 3829 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5871

Sentence - Possession and use or sale of weapons or ammunition - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1038 , both Civil Rights - Topic 1410 , first Civil Rights - Topic 3829 , and Criminal Law - Topic 1175 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Schwartz, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 443; 88 N.R. 90; 56 Man.R.(2d) 92, refd to. [para. 29].

Reference Re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783; 254 N.R. 201; 261 A.R. 201; 225 W.A.C. 201; 2000 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. MacDonald (E.) (2012), 317 N.S.R.(2d) 90; 1003 A.P.R. 90; 283 C.C.C.(3d) 308; 2012 NSCA 50, refd to. [para. 36].

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. 39, footnote 6].

R. v. Dunn (C.) (2013), 309 O.A.C. 311; 2013 ONCA 539, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 6].

R. v. Meer (J.D.), [2010] A.R. Uned. 947; 2011 ABQB 8, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Egonu (S.), [2007] O.T.C. Uned. G56; 2007 CarswellOnt 1985 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. A.D.H. (2013), 444 N.R. 293; 414 Sask.R. 210; 575 W.A.C. 210; 295 C.C.C.(3d) 376; 2013 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Khan (J.), [2007] O.T.C. Uned. S71; 217 C.C.C.(3d) 209 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Cairns (G.R.) (2007), 248 B.C.A.C. 287; 412 W.A.C. 287; 227 C.C.C.(3d) 149; 2007 BCCA 572, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Briscoe (M.E.) et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 411; 400 N.R. 216; 477 A.R. 86; 483 W.A.C. 86; 253 C.C.C.(3d) 140; 2010 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Williams (C.) (2009), 248 O.A.C. 323; 244 C.C.C.(3d) 138; 2009 ONCA 342, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Chalk (R.) (2007), 231 O.A.C. 107; 227 C.C.C.(3d) 141; 2007 ONCA 815, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Snobelen, [2008] O.J. No. 6021 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 58].

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. 62].

R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571; 314 N.R. 1; 191 B.C.A.C. 1; 314 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 74, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Miller and Cockriell, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 680; 11 N.R. 386, refd to. [para. 64].

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. 65].

R. v. McDonald (C.) (1998), 111 O.A.C. 25; 40 O.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Kinnear (R.) (2005), 199 O.A.C. 323; 198 C.C.C.(3d) 232 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. R.K. - see R. v. Kinnear (R.).

R. v. Ferguson (M.E.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96; 371 NR. 231; 425 A.R. 79; 418 W.A.C. 79; 2008 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 66].

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. 69].

R. v. Gill (R.) (2012), 295 O.A.C. 345; 2012 ONCA 607, refd to. [para. 69].

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. 69].

Steele v. Mountain Institution, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1385; 121 N.R. 198, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Latimer (R.W.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3; 264 N.R. 99; 203 Sask.R. 1; 240 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 79].

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; 2000 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Summers (S.) (2013), 304 O.A.C. 322; 114 O.R.(3d) 641; 2013 ONCA 147, leave to appeal granted [2013] S.C.C.A. No. 191, refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Bradbury (E.T.) (2013), 339 B.C.A.C. 169; 578 W.A.C. 169; 298 C.C.C.(3d) 31; 2013 BCCA 280, refd to. [para. 95].

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. 98].

R. v. Danvers (Q.) (2005), 201 O.A.C. 138; 199 C.C.C.(3d) 490 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Q.D. - see R. v. Danvers (Q.).

R. v. Nguyen (C.Q.) (2005), 209 B.C.A.C. 133; 345 W.A.C. 133; 2005 BCCA 115, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Brown (B.B.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 749; 173 N.R. 317; 97 Man.R.(2d) 169; 79 W.A.C. 169, refd to. [para. 125].

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. 128, footnote 15].

R. v. Laponsee, 2013 ONCJ 295, refd to. [para. 149].

R. v. Smickle (L.), [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 602; 280 C.C.C.(3d) 365; 2012 ONSC 602, refd to. [para. 154].

Ewing v. California (2003), 538 U.S. 11, refd to. [para. 161, footnote 19].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask. R. 1, refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. Smythe, [1971] S.C.R. 680, refd to. [para. 190].

Krieger et al. v. Law Society of Alberta, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 372; 293 N.R. 201; 312 A.R. 275; 281 W.A.C. 275; 2002 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 191].

R. v. V.T., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 749; 134 N.R. 289; 7 B.C.A.C. 81; 15 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 192].

United States of America et al. v. Nadarajah, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 609; 437 N.R. 107; 301 O.A.C. 264; 2012 SCC 70, refd to. [para. 196].

Sriskandarajah v. United States of America - see United States of America et al. v. Nadarajah.

Bedford et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 290 O.A.C. 236; 282 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2012 ONCA 186, leave to appeal granted (2012), 440 N.R. 399; 307 O.A.C. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 197].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 177]; sect. 7 [para. 184]; sect. 12 [para. 59]; sect. 15 [para. 182].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 95(1) [para. 27]; sect. 95(2)(a) [para. 4]; sect. 95(2)(a)(i) [para. 7].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Berger, Benjamin L., A More Lasting Comfort? The Politics of Minimum Sentences, The Rule of Law and R. v. Ferguson (2009), 47 S.C.L.R.(2d) 101, p. 103 [para. 116, footnote 13].

Canada, Public Safety, Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview, 2012 Annual Report (2012), pp. 83, 84 [para. 99, footnote 10].

Crutcher, Nicole, Mandatory Minimum Penalties of Imprisonment: An Historical Analysis (2001), 44 Crim. L.Q. 279, generally [para. 69].

Dufraimont, Lisa, R. v. Ferguson and the Search for a Coherent Approach to Mandatory Minimum Sentences Under Section 12 (2008), 42 S.C.L.R.(2d) 459, p. 472 [para. 116, footnote 13].

Fish, Morris J., An Eye for an Eye: Proportionality as a Moral Principle of Punishment (2008), 28 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 57, generally [para. 72].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed.) (2007 Looseleaf Supp.) (2007 Update, Release 1), pp. 53-3 to 53-4 [para. 60]; 53-4 [para. 115].

Manson, Allan, Arbitrary Disproportionality: A New Charter Standard for Measuring the Constitutionality of Mandatory Minimum Sentences (2012), 57 S.C.L.R.(2d) 173, pp. 178 to 181 [para. 116, footnote 13]; 200 to 202 [para. 63, footnote 8].

Roach, Kent, Searching for Smith: The Constitutionality of Mandatory Sentences (2001) 39 Osgoode Hall L.J. 367, p. 369 [para. 116; footnote 13].

Roberts, Julian, Mandatory Minimum Sentences of Imprisonment: Exploring the Consequences for the Sentencing Process (2001), 39 Osgoode Hall L.J. 305, generally [para. 69].

Counsel:

Dirk Derstine and Janani Shanmuganathan, for the appellant;

Riun Shandler and Andreea Baiasu, for the respondent;

Moiz Rahman and Nancy Dennison, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Paul F. Monahan and Kimberly Potter, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Bruce F. Simpson, for the intervener, the John Howard Society of Canada;

Virginia Nelder and Faisal Mirza, for the intervener, the African Canadian Legal Clinic;

Scott Hutchison and Danielle Robitaille, for the intervener, the Advocates' Society.

This appeal was heard on February 19 to 22, 2013, before Doherty, Goudge, Cronk, Blair and Tulloch, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Doherty, J.A., on November 12, 2013.