R. v. Wiles (P.N.), 2004 NSCA 3

• Judge: Bateman, Oland and Hamilton, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: January 08, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2004 NSCA 3;(2004), 220 N.S.R.(2d) 126 (CA)

R. v. Wiles (P.N.) (2004), 220 N.S.R.(2d) 126 (CA);

 694 A.P.R. 126

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.022

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Philip Neil Wiles (respondent)

(CAC 200952; 200951; 2004 NSCA 3)

Indexed As: R. v. Wiles (P.N.)

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Bateman, Oland and Hamilton, JJ.A.

January 8, 2004.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to, inter alia, unlawful production of marijuana contrary to s. 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Section 109(1)(c) of the Criminal Code provided for a mandatory firearms prohibition order for such an offence. The accused submitted that the application of s. 109(1)(c) to a conviction under s. 7(1) constituted cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter. The sentencing judge agreed and refused to impose a firearms prohibition. The Crown appealed.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and imposed the mandatory prohibition order. Section 109(1)(c), as applied to the designated Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences, did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Civil Rights - Topic 3832

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes - Prohibition order - Section 109(1)(c) of the Criminal Code provided for a mandatory firearms prohibition order for designated offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, including production of scheduled substances such as marijuana (s. 7(1)) - A trial judge ruled that a mandatory firearms prohibition order for producing marijuana constituted cruel and unusual punishment contrary to s. 12 of the Charter, because there was no link between the offence and the prohibition, no violence in the offence and a prohibition would be grossly disproportionate to the offence - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that a mandatory prohibition order for production of marijuana did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment - A mandatory prohibition order was neither grossly disproportionate to the offence charged, nor grossly disproportionate for the reasonable, hypothetical offender (i.e. prohibition not so excessive as to outrage standards of decency) - Prohibition had a legitimate connection to s. 7 offences, related to a recognized sentencing goal (protection of the public and protection of police) and the protection of public safety by reducing the misuse of firearms was a valid state interest.

Criminal Law - Topic 5799

Punishments (sentence) - Prohibition orders - Respecting firearms, etc. - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3832 ].

Cases Noticed:

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. 11].

R. v. CIP Inc., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 843; 135 N.R. 90; 52 O.A.C. 366, refd to. [para. 13].

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. 14].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Luxton, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 711; 112 N.R. 193; 111 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 17].

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. 17].

Steele v. Mountain Institution, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1385; 121 N.R. 198, refd to. [para. 17].

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. 17].

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. 17]

R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al. (2003), 314 N.R. 1; 191 B.C.A.C. 1; 314 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Caine (V.E.) - see R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al.

R. v. Guiller et al. (1985), 48 C.R.(3d) 226 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Kelly, Payne and Kelly (1990), 41 O.A.C. 32; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 497 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Sawyer, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 809; 174 N.R. 162; 76 O.A.C. 239, refd to. [para. 36].

Reference Re Firearms Act (Can.) (1998), 219 A.R. 201; 179 W.A.C. 201; 164 D.L.R.(4th) 513 (C.A.), affd. [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783; 254 N.R. 201; 261 A.R. 201; 225 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 46].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 12 [para. 7].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 109(1)(c) [para. 4].

Counsel:

Stanley W. McDonald, for the appellant;

Philip J. Star, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 28, 2003, at Halifax, N.S., before Bateman, Oland and Hamilton, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

On January 8, 2004, Bateman, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.