Summaries Sunday: Supreme Advocacy

• Author: Administrator
• Date: November 17, 2019

One Sunday each month we bring you a summary from Supreme Advocacy LLP of recent decisions at the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Advocacy LLP offers a weekly electronic newsletter, Supreme Advocacy Letter, to which you may subscribe. It’s a summary of all appeals as well as leaves to appeal granted so you will know what the SCC will soon be dealing with (October 12 – November 15, 2019 inclusive).

Appeals

Criminal Law: Delay; Youth
R. v. K.J.M., 2019 SCC 55 (38292)

Two main issues: do the presumptive Jordan ceilings apply to youth justice court proceedings; was the delay here unreasonable? The first issue, affirmative: while the enhanced need for timeliness in youth matters is well established in the jurisprudence and codified in s. 3(1) (b)(iv) and (v) of the YCJA, this factor is accounted for within the existing Jordan framework. Re the second issue, a stay is not warranted.

Criminal Law: Forfeiture; Legal Fees
R. v. Rafilovich, 2019 SCC 51 (37791)

Generally speaking, sentencing judges should not impose a fine instead of forfeiture re funds judicially returned to pay reasonable legal fees for an accused’s criminal defence.

Criminal Law: Manslaughter/Criminal Negligence Causing Death
R. v. Javanmardi, 2019 SCC 54 (38188)

The actus reus of criminal negligence causing death requires the accused undertake an act, or omitted to do anything it was his or her legal duty to do, and the act or omission causes death.

The fault element being the accused’s act or omission “shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons”, though neither “wanton” nor “reckless” is defined in the Criminal Code. The actus reus of unlawful act manslaughter is satisfied by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed an unlawful act that caused death; there is no independent requirement of objective dangerousness.

Family Law: Jurisdiction of Québec Courts
R.S. v. P.R., 2019 SCC 49 (37861)

Article 3137 C.C.Q. establishes the lis pendens exception in Québec private international law, under which a court may stay its ruling on an action brought in Québec if the dispute is already the subject of proceedings before the courts of a foreign jurisdiction. This is an exception in that the Québec court is departing from the general principle re cases filed by staying proceedings validly brought before it. Under this article, three conditions must be met before a Québec court may stay its ruling. If any one is not met, the application for a stay cannot...