R. v. Sheldon S., (1990) 41 O.A.C. 81 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 23, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 41 O.A.C. 81 (SCC);41 OAC 81;49 CRR 79;57 CCC (3d) 3;77 CR (3d) 273;[1990] 2 SCR 254;1990 CanLII 65 (SCC)

R. v. Sheldon S. (1990), 41 O.A.C. 81 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Sheldon S. (respondent) and the Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General of Quebec and the Attorney General of Saskatchewan (intervenors)

(20845)

Indexed As: R. v. Sheldon S.

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.

June 28, 1990.

Summary:

A young offender was charged with possession of stolen property. Before entering a plea, the youth applied for relief under the Charter. Specifically, the youth alleged that the failure of the Province of Ontario to authorize alternative measures programs pursuant to s. 4 of the Young Offenders Act violated the youth's equality rights guaranteed by s. 15 of the Charter of Rights. The youth sought a stay of proceedings or a dismissal of the charge under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

The trial judge allowed the application and held that the failure of the Ontario government to implement the provisions of s. 4 of the Young Offenders Act resulted in discrimination against the youth on the basis of residence contrary to s. 15 of the Charter. The judge further held that the limitation was not reasonable under s. 1 of the Charter and that there was a duty on the province to implement such programs. The court held that the appropriate remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter in this case was a dismissal of the charges against the young offender. The Attorney General of Ontario appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Robins, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported in 26 O.A.C. 285; 63 C.R.(3d) 64; 35 C.R.R. 247; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 41, dismissed the appeal. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal and ordered a new trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 5511

Equality and protection of the law - Equal benefit of the law - The Province of Ontario failed to authorize the implementation of alternative measures programs pursuant to s. 4 of the Young Offenders Act - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Act did not impose a mandatory duty on the provinces to authorize such programs - The court further held that the failure to implement alternative measures programs did not deny young offenders in Ontario the right to equal benefit of the law as guaranteed by s. 15 of the Charter - The court held that the distinction, based on the residence of the young offender, did not constitute discrimination under s. 15, because it was not based on a personal characteristic - See paragraphs 25 to 31, 43 to 50.

Civil Rights - Topic 5642

Equality and protection of the law - Federal statute not applicable in all provinces - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5511 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5642

Equality and protection of the law - Federal statute not applicable in all provinces - The Supreme Court of Canada formulated an approach for determining whether province-based distinctions which arise from the application of federal law contravene s. 15(1) of the Charter, although the court noted that a case-by-case approach was appropriate - See paragraphs 48 to 50.

Civil Rights - Topic 5643

Equality and protection of the law - Young offenders - Alternative measures (diversion) programs - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5511 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 6494

Federal jurisdiction - Criminal law - Young offenders - Alternative measures (diversion) programs - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that s. 4 of the Young Offenders Act was legislation in relation to the criminal law and therefore intra vires Parliament and was not legislation in relation to child welfare, which was under provincial jurisdiction - See paragraphs 32 to 40.

Criminal Law - Topic 8702.1

Young offenders - Interpretation of legislation - The Supreme Court of Canada (per Dickson, C.J.C.), stated that "while I agree that s. 3(2) (of the Young Offenders Act) dictates that a liberal interpretation be given to the legislation, in my opinion that does not require the abandonment of the principles of statutory interpretation nor does it preclude resort to the ordinary meaning of words in interpreting a statute" - See paragraph 28.

Criminal Law - Topic 8763

Young offenders - Alternative measures (diversion) programs - Validity of - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 6494 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 8766

Young offenders - Alternative measures (diversion) programs - Failure to implement - Effect of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5511 ].

Words and Phrases

Should - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the word "should" as found in s. 3(1)(d) of the Young Offenders Act, S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 110, denoted simply a request or a desire, and not a legal obligation - See paragraph 28.

Cases Noticed:

Attorney General of British Columbia v. Smith, [1967] S.C.R. 702, appld. [para. 12].

Peel, Regional Municipality of v. MacKenzie and Attorney General of Canada et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 9; 42 N.R. 572, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 16].

Julius v. Bishop of Oxford (1880), 5 App. Cas. 214 (H.L.), consd. [para. 29].

Attorney General for Ontario v. Hamilton Street Railway Co., [1903] A.C. 524, refd to. [para. 33].

Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. Attorney General for Canada, [1931] A.C. 310, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. S.H.M., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 446; 100 N.R. 1; 100 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Zelensky, T. Eaton Co. Ltd. and Attorney General of Canada et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 940; 21 N.R. 372, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of Canada Ltd., [1956] S.C.R. 303, refd to. [para. 39].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; [1989] 2 W.W.R. 289; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1, appld. [para. 45].

Reference Re Roman Catholic Separate High Schools Funding, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148; 77 N.R. 241; 22 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115, consd. [para. 48].

Fredericton v. The Queen (1880), 3 S.C.R. 505, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Burnshine, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 693; 2 N.R. 53, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Cornell, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 461; 83 N.R. 384, refd to. [para. 49].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 9, 16]; sect. 7 [para. 43]; sect. 15 [paras. 4, 8, 21, 24, 49]; sect. 15(1) [paras. 8, 13, 15-17, 21, 42-48, 50].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(27) [paras. 3, 24, 32-33, 39-41, 49]; sect. 92(13) [paras. 3, 11, 32]; sect. 92(14) [paras. 3, 41-42, 49].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 28 [para. 19].

Juvenile Delinquents Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. J-3, sect. 20(1), sect. 20(2) [paras. 36-37].

Young Offenders Act, S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 110, sect. 2(1) [para. 2]; sect. 2(4) [paras. 2, 41]; sect. 3 [paras. 2, 28]; sect. 3(1)(d) [paras. 8, 15, 28]; sect. 3(1)(f) [paras. 8, 15]; sect. 3(2) [paras. 15, 19, 28]; sect. 4 [paras. 1, 2, 6, 10-12, 15, 19, 24, 32, 34, 36, 39-41, 43-45]; sect. 4(1) [paras. 25-27, 30, 37-39]; sect. 4(1)(a) [paras. 8, 24].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bala, Nicholas and Heino Lilles, The Young Offenders Act Annotated (1984), pp. 17-18 [para. 50]; 257 [para. 20]; 22-23 [para. 30].

Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (1984), p. 235 [para. 29].

Debates of the House of Commons on the Second Reading of the Young Offenders Act (April 15, 1981), p. 9309 [para. 20].

Driedger, E.A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 29].

Hudson, Joe, Joseph P. Hornick and Barbara Burrows, Justice and the Young Offender in Canada (1988), pp. 4-5 [para. 34].

Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Ed. 1989), vol. 9 [para. 27].

Rabinovitch, Paul, Diversion under Section 4: Is There a Future for it in Ontario?, in Young Offenders Service (1984), p. 257 [para. 20].

Swinton, Katherine, Competing Visions of Constitutionalism: Of Federalism and Rights, in Competing Constitutional Visions: The Meech Lake Accord (Katherine E. Swinton and Carol J. Rogerson, eds.) (1988), p. 291 [para. 46].

Counsel:

Brian J. Gover, for the appellant;

Brian Weagant and Michael Anne MacDonald, for the respondent;

Douglas J.A. Rutherford, Q.C., and D.J. Avison, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Yves de Montigny and Jean Turmel, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Robert G. Richards and Ross MacNabb, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan.

Solicitors of Record:

The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Brian Weagant, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;

John C. Tait, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Yves de Montigny and Françoise Saint-Martin, Ste-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Brian Barrington-Foote, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan.

This appeal was heard before Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada on March 23, 1989. The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered on June 28, 1990, in both official languages by Dickson, C.J.C.