Author: Student

The Curious Case of Section 15 and Courts of First Instance: The Joint Asper Centre, LEAF and West Coast LEAF Intervention in Canadian Council for Refugees, et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, et al 

Posted on by Student

by Caitlin Salvino

In the Fall of 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) will hear the case Canadian Council for Refugees, et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, et al.[1] The David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund (West Coast LEAF), and Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) have been jointly granted intervener status.[2] Their joint intervention focuses on the treatment of claims under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) by courts of first instance.

The Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States

In Canada, an individual can apply for refugee status at an official Port of Entry or at an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada office. To qualify for refugee status the claimant must either: (1) have a well-founded fear of persecution or (2) are at risk of torture, or cruel or unusual punishment in their home countries.[3]

In Canada, the federal government has restricted Port of Entry asylum claims through the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) with the United States (US). The STCA bars refugee claimants that arrive at the Canadian border from the US, unless they meet a narrow category of exceptions.[4] The STCA expects refugees to make an asylum claim in the first safe country they enter, in this case the US. The Canadian government maintains that countries will only be recognised as a “safe third country” if they respect human rights and offer a high degree of protection to refugee claimants.[5]  The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) requires the Government of Canada to continuously review the STCA with the US to ensure that it meets  four conditions listed in the IRPA.[6] The STCA with the US has been criticised by refugee and human rights organisations, based on increasing evidence of mistreatment of refugee claimants in the US.[7]

Challenging the Constitutionality of the Safe Third Country Agreement

In 2017, the STCA was jointly challenged by refugee claimants barred under the STCA, together with the Canadian Council of Refugees, Amnesty International and the Canadian Council of Churches. In addition to arguing that provisions of the STCA were ultra vires, the Applicants argued that the combined effect of sections 101(1)(e) of IRPA and 159.3 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations unjustifiably infringed sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.[8]

Under section 7, the Applicants argued that many asylum seekers rejected under the STCA are automatically imprisoned upon their return to the US as a form of punishment depriving the claimants of their section 7 rights to liberty and security of the person.[9] With respect to section 15, the Applicants argued that the STCA with the US has a disproportionate impact on female-identifying refugee claimants. This claim was supported by evidence of a narrower interpretation of gender persecution asylum claims in the US[10] and a one-year bar on all refugee claims in the US.[11] The one-year ban on refugee claims requires an individual to seek asylum within one year of experiencing persecution – a restriction that poses a barrier for women and 2SLGBTQQIA[12] individuals who experience gender persecution that involve unique forms of trauma that often result in delayed reporting.[13]

The Applicants succeeded at the Federal Court in 2020. The Federal Court declared that the provisions[14] enacting the STCA unjustifiably infringed section 7 of the Charter.[15] The Federal Court held that the STCA was intra vires federal authority and declined to address the arguments put forward on section 15 of the Charter.[16] As a remedy for the section 7 violation, the impugned provisions were declared to have no force or effect and the declaration of invalidity was suspended for six months.[17]

The Federal Court ruling was overturned by the Federal Court of Appeal in 2021.[18] The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court that the STCA is intra vires the federal authority[19] but disagreed with the findings with respect to section 7 of the Charter.[20] The Federal Court of Appeal, held that the two impugned provisions, which recognise the US as a safe third country, do not cause the harms being challenged under the Charter.[21] Instead, the Federal Court of Appeal held that section 102(3) of IRPA, which includes the criteria for safe third country designation, should have been challenged under judicial review in relation to the alleged harms under the Charter.[22] Regardless of the appropriate approach, the Federal Court of Appeal disagreed with the lower court’s factual findings on section 7, which the Federal Court of Appeal deemed insufficient and unrepresentative of the experiences of refugee claimants on the whole.[23] On section 15, the Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the Federal Court’s approach to judicial restraint and also declined to address the claim based on equality rights.[24]

Joint Asper Centre, LEAF and West Coast LEAF Intervention

In Canada, there is a growing recognition of the relevance of gender-related persecution in refugee asylum claims. Although it is not yet recognised as an independent ground to establish fear of persecution, if claimed, gender-related persecution must be assessed by the Refugee Division panel considering the claim.[25] The assessment of gender-related persecution claims requires an examination of the link between gender persecution and the enumerated grounds in the Refugee Convention.[26]

The Applicants argued that the STCA violated both sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. Under section 15, the Applicants argued that the STCA disproportionately impacts female-identifying refugees[27] and provide an extensive evidentiary record of gender discrimination under the STCA.  After determining that provisions of the STCA unjustifiably infringed section 7 of the Charter the Federal Court declined to address the section 15 claim.[28] In doing so, the Federal Court made no factual findings on the evidence of gender-based discrimination within the STCA legal regime. The Federal Court’s disregard of the section 15 claim was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal who determined that lower courts are not required to consider all Charter claims because section 15 “does not enjoy ‘superior status in a hierarchy of rights’”.[29]

The joint Asper Centre, West Coast LEAF and LEAF intervention for the upcoming SCC hearing focuses on the Federal Court’s decision to not consider and make factual findings on all Charter issues raised that are supported by an extensive evidentiary record. The joint interveners argue that the Federal Court should have decided the section 15 claim and the refusal to consider the section 15 claim inappropriately applied the doctrine of judicial restraint.[30]

The joint interveners support their position with three arguments. First, a purposive interpretation of the Charter as a whole requires a ruling on all Charter claims raised with an extensive evidentiary record. The Federal Court’s decision to decline considering the section 15 issue altered the subsequent justificatory analysis of section 1 and the appropriate remedy.[31] Second, the lower court erred in its application of the principle of judicial restraint, which does not permit a court to favour one Charter claim over another.[32] This flawed interpretation of the principle of judicial restraint has the practical implication of creating a hierarchy of Charter rights, within which section 15 is relegated to the bottom.[33] Third, the Federal Court’s failure to address the section 15 claim minimises the issue of gender-based violence and historic disadvantage experienced by women and 2SLGBTQQIA individuals.[34]

Looking Ahead

The SCC hearings in Canadian Council for Refugees, et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, et al. will be heard in Fall 2022.[35] The joint intervention by the Asper Centre, West Coast LEAF and LEAF argues that this case represents a unique opportunity for Canada’s highest court to send a directive to lower courts regarding the treatment of court cases with multiple Charter claims. This guidance on the treatment of multiple Charter claims in a single case is particularly relevant to equality rights under section 15 – a Charter provision that has been historically dismissed[36] and has experienced uncertainty based on its “continual reinvention” in the jurisprudence.[37]

The Asper Centre, West Coast LEAF and LEAF filed their joint intervention factum on June 15, 2022 and it can be read here. 

Caitlin Salvino is a JD Candidate at the Faculty of Law and is the Asper Centre’s 2022 summer Research Assistant.

[1] The date of the SCC hearings for Canadian Council for Refugees, et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, et al. is October 3, 2022.

[2] Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Canadian Council for Refugees, 2021 FCA 72, leave to appeal to SCC granted, 2021 CanLII 129759. 

[3] Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, “How Canada’s refugee system works”, (27 November 2019), online: Government of Canada https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/canada-role.html.

[4] Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, “Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement”, (23 July 2020), online: Government of Canada https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement.html.

[5] Overview of the Canada–United States Safe Third Country Agreement Background Paper, 4, by Madalina Chesoi & Robert Mason, 4 2020-70-E (Library of Parliament, 2021) at 1–2.

[6] The four conditions that are evaluated in each review are: (1) if they are a party to the Refugee Convention and Convention Against Torture; (2) its policies and practices are in line with those two international treaties; (3) its human rights record and (4) whether they are party to an STCA agreement with Canada. See Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, supra note 3.

[7] “US as a Safe Third Country Infographic”, (June 2017), online: Canadian Council for Refugees <https://ccrweb.ca/en/us-safe-third-country-infographic>; Contesting the Designation of the US as a Safe Third Country, by Amnesty International & Canadian Council for Refugees (2017); “Refugees entering from US and Safe Third Country: FAQ”, (February 2017), online: Canadian Council for Refugees https://ccrweb.ca/en/refugees-entering-us-and-safe-third-country-faq.

[8] Canadian Council for Refugees v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FC 770, at paras 82–83 [Canadian Council for Refugees FC].

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid at para 151.

[11]  Ibid at para 153.

[12] The acronym 2SLGBTQQIA refers to Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex and asexual.

[13]  Canadian Council for Refugees FC, supra note 8 at para 153.

[14] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, s 101(1)(e), 159.3.

[15] Canadian Council for Refugees FC, supra note 8 at para 162.

[16] Ibid at paras 151–154.

[17] Ibid at para 163.

[18] Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Canadian Council for Refugees, 2021 FCA 72, at para 179 [Canadian Council for Refugees FCA 2021].

[19] Ibid at para 179.

[20] Ibid at paras 132–168.

[21] Ibid at paras 46–47.

[22] Ibid at paras 92–93.

[23] Ibid at paras 132–168.

[24] Ibid at paras 169–174.

[25] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Chairperson Guidelines 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, online: https://irb.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/policies/Pages/GuideDir04.aspx.

[26] The enumerated grounds under the Refugee Convention are having a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. See UN General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 189, p. 137, 1951.

[27] Canadian Council for Refugees FC, supra note 8 at para 151.

[28]  Ibid at para 154.

[29] Canadian Council for Refugees FCA 2021, supra note 19 at para 172 citing Gosselin, supra note 25 at para 26.

[30] Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Canadian Council for Refugees, 2021 FCA 72, leave to appeal to SCC granted, 2021 CanLII 129759 (Factum of Joint Interveners Asper Centre, West Coast LEAF and LEAF, at para 3).

[31] Ibid at para 4.

[32] Ibid at para 18.

[33] Ibid at para 4.

[34] Ibid at para 26.

[35] The date of the SCC hearings for Canadian Council for Refugees, et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, et al.is October 3, 2022.

[36] Bruce Ryder & Taufiq Hashmani, “Managing Charter Equality Rights: The Supreme Court of Canada’s Disposition of Leave to Appeal Applications in Section 15 Cases, 1989-2010” (2010) 51 SCLR 505; Jonnette Watson Hamilton & Jennifer Koshan, “Adverse Impact: The Supreme Court’s Approach to Adverse Effects Discrimination under Section 15 of the Charter” (2014) 19 Rev Const Stud 191.

[37] Jennifer Koshan & Jonnette Watson Hamilton, “The Continual Reinvention of Section 15 of the Charter” (2013) 64 UNBLJ 19.

R v Bissonnette: The Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Constitutionality of Consecutive First Degree Murder Sentences

Posted on by Student

by Caitlin Salvino

In R v Bissonnette, released on May 27, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruled on the constitutionality of consecutive first degree murder sentences.[1] The SCC held that consecutive first degree murder sentences, authorised under section 745.51 of the Criminal Code (the Code) violates section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) and cannot be “demonstrably justified” in a free and democratic society.

The SCC ruling in Bissonnette garnered headlines across Canada[2] and a strong reaction by some Canadian political leaders[3]. This piece will examine the decision and the reasoning that influenced this unanimous SCC decision.

Legislative History

After the death penalty was abolished in Canada, Parliament created mandatory minimum life sentences for the two categories of first degree and second degree murder. For second degree murder the parole ineligibility period varies between 10 and 15 years. For first degree murder, the parole ineligibility is automatically 25 years, regardless of the number of victims.[4] In 2011, Parliament introduced amendments to the Code under section 745.51 that permitted individuals convicted of multiple counts of murder to have each murder sentence applied consecutively.[5] Thus, a judge may determine that an individual convicted of multiple murders should be sentenced to mandatory periods of ineligibility for parole served consecutively.[6]

Factual Background and Procedural History

On January 29, 2017, the respondent (Alexandre Bissonnette) entered the Great Mosque of Québec with a semi-automatic rifle and opened fire on a crowd of 46 worshippers. Bissonnette killed 6 people and seriously injured 5 others. He pleaded guilty to 12 charges, including 6 counts of first degree murder.[7]

At sentencing the Crown requested that section 745.51 of the Code be applied and the six mandatory periods of ineligibility for parole be served consecutively. If applied consecutively, the sentences would total 150 years before Bissonnette could be eligible for parole. Bissonnette argued that applying section 745.51 of the Code infringes sections 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The Quebec Superior Court held that section 745.51 of the Code violates sections 7 and 12 of the Charter and cannot be “demonstrably justified” under section 1 of the Charter.[8] After declaring the provision unconstitutional, the judge then applied the remedy of reading in and sentenced Bissonnette to 40 years in prison before applying for parole.[9]

The Quebec Court of Appeal (QCCA) unanimously held that section 745.51 of the Code violates sections 7 and 12 of the Charter and cannot be “demonstrably justified” under section 1 of the Charter.[10] The QCCA also held that the trial judge erred in sentencing Bissonnette to 40 years in prison without parole eligibility. The identified error in law was that the sentencing alteration had no basis in law.[11]

Interpreting Section 12 of the Charter: Cruel and Unusual Punishments

In an unanimous decision the SCC ruled that section 745.51 of the Code violates section 12 of the Charter and cannot be saved under section 1. Based on this finding the SCC did not consider if section 7 of the Charter was engaged.[12]

Section 12 of the Charter states that “everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment”.[13] Notably, this right applies to everyone regardless of citizenship status but is limited to humans.[14] Section 12 is engaged only when there is either a punishment or a treatment. In Bissonnette, the SCC determined that the serving of consecutive sentences without the possibility of parole qualified as a punishment to engage section 12.

The SCC then clarified the application of section 12 before applying the principles to the case. Chief Justice Wagner, on behalf of the unanimous Court, affirmed that section 12 has two prongs that must be distinguished.[15] First, section 12 safeguards against a punishment that “is so excessive as to be incompatible with human dignity”.[16] This category is comprised of punishment that not only is excessive but is grossly disproportionate compared to what would have been appropriate.[17] Recent jurisprudence on mandatory minimum sentences have found them to be grossly disproportionate for imposing punishment without consideration of the offenders specific circumstances.[18] Second, section 12 safeguards against punishment that “is intrinsically incompatible with human dignity”.[19] This narrower category comprised of punishments that are by nature incompatible with human dignity will always be considered grossly disproportionate.[20] Other punishments recognised in this evolving category include corporal punishment, lobotomisation of certain dangerous offenders and castration of sexual offenders.[21]

The SCC held that a punishment will be held to infringe section 12 if either of these two prongs is engaged. While pursuing a section 12 analysis, the SCC determined that courts must first analyse the nature of the punishment before considering gross disproportionality.[22]

Application to Bissonnette Factual Matrix

After considering the facts the SCC held that the application of consecutive first degree murder sentences without the possibility of parole was grossly disproportionate because they “are degrading in nature and thus incompatible with human dignity”. This determination was made based on the finding that such consecutive sentences deny offenders any possibility of reform and societal reintegration.[23] Based on the lower life expectancy of individuals in prison, the SCC held that any consecutive sentence of 50 years or more without parole was akin to a life sentence without parole.[24] The SCC also drew on comparative[25] and international law[26] to guide their interpretation of the Charter rights.

The SCC concluded their section 12 analysis by determining that the discretionary nature of sentences and the royal prerogative authority does not permit imposing a punishment contrary to section 12 of the Charter.

After finding that consecutive first degree murder sentences without parole eligibility infringes section 12, the SCC briefly analysed whether section 745.51 of the Code could be saved under section 1. Section 1 of the Charter, also known as the reasonable limits clause, allows the government to reasonably limit a Charter right if the limitation “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.[27] The SCC drew on its earlier decision in R v Nur to find that “it is hard to imagine how a punishment that is cruel and unusual by nature could be justified in a free and democratic society”.[28]

At the remedy stage, the SCC held that the trial court erred in its interpretation of its authority under the remedy of reading in.[29] Instead, the SCC applied section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 to declare section 745.51 of the Code invalid for a breach of section 12 of the Charter that could not be saved under section 1.[30] The declaration of invalidity would come into effect immediately.[31]

Looking Ahead

Bissonnette is the second unanimous SCC decision rendered on Charter rights within criminal law proceedings in May 2022. In R v Sullivan, the SCC held that the barring of the defence of self-induced intoxication for crimes of general intent under section 33 of the Code unjustifiably infringed sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.[32] These two unanimous decisions establish clear safeguards for the constitutional rights of individuals accused of an offence or undergoing sentencing.

Immediately following the release of the Bissonnette decision, two federal Conservative Party of Canada leadership candidates expressed their intent to invoke the notwithstanding clause to temporarily set aside the effects of the decision.[33] The notwithstanding clause entrenched under section 33 of the Charter, is a legislative tool that permits a federal, provincial, or territorial legislature to declare an Act or provision of an Act to operate notwithstanding sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the Charter. Any notwithstanding clause declaration must be passed by a legislative simple majority and expires after five years.[34] If the notwithstanding clause were to be invoked to temporarily suspend section 12 of the Charter, it would be the first time ever used by the federal Parliament.[35]

Caitlin Salvino is a JD Candidate at the Faculty of Law and is the Asper Centre’s 2022 summer Research Assistant.

[1] R v Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23 [Bissonnette].

[2] Isabelle Porter, “Alexandre Bissonnette pourra chercher une libération conditionnelle après 25 ans”, Le Devoir (28 May 2022), online: <https://www.ledevoir.com/societe/justice/716079/decision-cour-supreme-alexandre-bissonnette-mosquee-de-quebec>; Joe Lofaro, “Supreme Court rules Quebec City mosque killer to be eligible for parole in 25 years”, CTV Montreal (27 May 2022), online: <https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/supreme-court-rules-quebec-city-mosque-killer-to-be-eligible-for-parole-in-25-years-1.5921148>; Antoni Nerestant, “Quebec City mosque shooter must get chance at parole after 25 years, Supreme Court rules”, CBC News Montreal (27 May 2022), online: <https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/supreme-court-canada-bissonnette-mosque-shooting-sentence-parole-1.6466847>; Sean Fine, “Supreme Court to rule on constitutionality of life without parole in case of Quebec City mosque shooter”, The Globe and Mail (25 May 2022), online: <https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-supreme-court-quebec-city-mosque-shooter/>.

[3] Federal Conservative Party of Canada leadership candidates Pierre Poilievre and Patrick Brown both released statements following the SCC ruling pledging to invoke the notwithstanding clause to temporarily suspend the decision if elected. The notwithstanding clause under section 33 of the Charter, permits a federal, provincial or territorial legislature to suspend sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the Charter for a renewable period of 5 years. See Peter Zimonjic, “Government disagrees with top court’s decision on gunman’s parole but will respect it: Lametti”, CBC News (27 May 2022), online: <https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lametti-top-court-parole-decision-1.6468914>; Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 8, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 (UK), c 11 (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms), 1982, s 33.

[4] Bissonnette, supra note 1 at para 31.

[5] Ibid at para 34.

[6] Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 745.51.

[7] Bissonnette, supra note 1 at paras 11–12.

[8] R c Bissonnette, 2019 QCCS 354.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Bissonnette c R, 2020 QCCA 1585.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Bissonnette, supra note 1 at para 119.

[13] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, supra note 3, s 12.

[14] Quebec (Attorney General) v 9147-0732 Québec inc., 2020 SCC 32.

[15] Bissonnette, supra note 1 at para 59.

[16] Ibid at para 60.

[17] Ibid at para 61.

[18] Ibid at para 63 citing R v Nur, 2015 SCC 15; R v Ferguson, 2008 SCC 96; R v Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13.

[19] Bissonnette, supra note 1 at para 60.

[20] Ibid at para 64.

[21] Ibid at paras 64–65.

[22] Ibid at para 69.

[23] Ibid at para 73.

[24] Ibid at para 78.

[25] Ibid at paras 105–106.

[26] The SCC referenced the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Rome Statute, and the European Convention on Human Rights. See ibid at paras 99–104.

[27] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, supra note 3, s 1.

[28] Bissonnette, supra note 1 at para 121.

[29] Ibid at para 124.

[30] Ibid at para 123.

[31] Ibid at para 125.

[32] R. v. Sullivan, 2022 SCC 19. For an analysis of Sullivan, see Kathryn Mullins. ”R v Sullivan, R v Chan and R v Brown: The Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Defence of Extreme Intoxication”. David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, May 2022. online: https://aspercentre.ca/r-v-sullivan-r-v-chan-and-r-v-brown-the-supreme-courts-ruling-on-the-defence-of-extreme-intoxication/.

[33] Zimonjic, supra note 3.

[34] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, supra note 3, s 33.

[35] Caitlin Salvino, “A Tool of Last Resort: A Comprehensive Account of the Notwithstanding Clause Political Uses 1982-2021” (2022) 16:1 JPPL.

Moving Towards Substantive Equality in Sentencing: R v Morris

Posted on by Student

by: Bailey Fox

Introduction

In R v Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) considered the impact and role of anti-Black racism in sentencing. The Asper Centre intervened in the appeal, specifically on the issue of whether an offender is required to prove a causal link between systemic racism and the offence. The Court’s decision is both ground-breaking, in recognizing the impact of systemic racism in sentencing, but aspects of the decision also limit the impact it may have in realizing substantive equality.

Mr. Morris was found guilty of gun-related offences, including possession of a loaded handgun. The sentencing judge, having accepted pre-trial sentencing reports detailing the impact of anti-black racism on Mr. Morris’ life and actions, sentenced him to a mitigated 15-month sentence. The Crown appealed the sentence, arguing that it is unfit and not commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Crown and increased Mr. Morris’ sentence to two years but stayed the sentence. In lengthy reasons, the Court clarified the role of anti-Black racism in assessing the offender’s blameworthiness, how to prove the impact of systemic racism, and the interaction between the fact of racism and sentencing principles.

Taking Steps…

Aspects of the decision are important for defence lawyers hoping to advance substantive equality in the criminal law. Specifically, the Ontario Court of Appeal acknowledged the existence and negative effects of anti-Black racism in society and in the criminal justice system. The Court held that anti-Black racism should be considered in the sentencing process, specifically in assessing the offender’s moral blameworthiness. Importantly from an access to justice perspective, the OCA held that judges may take judicial notice of anti-Black racism and Black individuals should not be required to tender expert reports detailing the existence of anti-Black racism and its impact on them.

The Court also held that an offender need not demonstrate a causal link between systemic racism and the relevant offence, a holding in line with the Asper Centre’s submissions and the objectives of substantive equality. As an intervenor, the Asper Centre submitted that an offender should not be required to prove a causal link between systemic anti-black racism and the offending conduct. The Asper Centre highlighted that proving such a causal link is not required in other circumstances, such as in the case of youthful offenders or offenders with mental illness. The Asper Centre also submitted that the requirement to prove a causal link is not compatible with the objectives of substantive equality. While an offender may show evidence of how systemic factors affected them, a requirement to demonstrate a causal link would place an undue evidentiary burden on offenders. In holding that a causal link is not required, the Ontario Court of Appeal’s reasons largely mirror the Asper Centre’s submissions on this point. The Court held that while there must be some connection between systemic racism and the criminal conduct, causation “plays no role when considering the impact of an offender’s background or circumstances on sentencing” (para 96 – 97) The court concluded that social context evidence can be useful in explaining the offence and mitigating the offender’s moral culpability (para 99).

…Cautiously…

However, the Court also limited the utility and scope of recognizing anti-Black racism in sentencing. First, the Court held that sentencing judges may only take the role of anti-Black racism into account when considering the offender’s moral culpability but not in considering the seriousness of the offence (para 75). According to sentencing principles, the more serious the offence – and gun-related offences are generally considered more serious – the more a sentence should emphasize the principles of denunciation and deterrence. The OCA held that anti-Black racism cannot reduce an evaluation of the seriousness of the offence and therefore deterrence and denunciation remain important objectives when sentencing Black individuals. This holding however, maintains a cognitive dissonance between society’s collective responsibility for systemic racism and the individual’s conduct – that anti-Black racism does not affect the principle of denunciation impedes both recognizing the impact of racism and addressing it. In concluding that the sentencing judge erred in taking anti-Black racism into account in the context of assessing the seriousness of the offence, the Court of Appeal signals that systemic racism can affect sentencing, but only to a point.

While the case did not explicitly invoke the Charter’s s.15 equality guarantee, the Court’s analysis is very thin on the interaction between s.15, and the goal of substantive equality, and sentencing. Specifically, while recognizing that an offender need not demonstrate a causal connection between the offence and racism, the Court held that a judge may take systemic racism into account and not that they must. Unlike the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal’s decision in R v Anderson, 2021 NSCA 62, the Court did not go so far as to say that it is an error of law if a sentencing judge fails to consider the impact of systemic anti-Black racism. This is unfortunate because under R v Morris, it remains the defence lawyer’s responsibility to raise the issue, and it is within the sentencing judge’s discretion as to how to apply such considerations. This could lead to uneven application of the Court’s findings in R v Morris.

While recognizing the fact of systemic anti-Black racism, the Court’s decision also clings to some conventional individual responsibility and tough on crime narratives in sentencing, therefore limiting the impact of the decision. Notably, the Court overturned the sentencing judge’s finding of fact on why Mr. Morris fled from the police. The sentencing judge had found that Mr. Morris fled at least in part because of an ‘impulsive reaction’ based on his fear of the police and that he would not be treated fairly. However, the OCA held that the ‘only reasonable inference’ is that Mr. Morris fled to avoid being caught (para 171). The Court does not explain why this is the only reasonable inference, or why it was an error to consider the systemic racism often reflected in policing of Black communities in this finding of fact. Similarly, the Court noted that members of the community would not consider “more lenient” sentences for gun crimes as advancing social equality (para 85). This finding, first, reflects and embeds an understanding of conditional sentences as lenient, as opposed to commensurate with the offender’s circumstances. Second, it assigns a ‘tough on crime’ perspective to the community without considering the impact of incarceration on community well-being. In embedding these perspectives in a decision while also recognizing that anti-Black systemic racism may be considered in sentencing, the Court limits the reach of the latter finding.

Conclusion

R v Morris is a promising step in the direction of promoting substantive equality in sentencing. The Court recognized that judges may take judicial notice of anti-Black racism and that offenders need not prove a causal link, holdings that will promote consideration of racism in sentencing. However, in limiting the role of systemic racism in the sentencing process while clinging to a tough on crime perspective, the Court limited the impact of its finding therefore inhibiting the potential for achieving substantive equality in the sentencing process.

Bailey Fox is a Research Assistant with the Asper Centre and is currently an LLM student at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law.

The Positives of Campaigning: City of Toronto and Freedom of Expression at the Supreme Court

Posted on by Student

by Bailey Fox

Introduction

On October 1, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its decision in Toronto (City) v Ontario (Attorney General), 2021 SCC 34 [City of Toronto]. In the 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the legislation that reduced the size of Toronto City Council during an ongoing municipal election did not violate the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of expression. The Court also held that unwritten constitutional principles cannot, on their own, invalidate legislation.

The Asper Centre intervened in the case, specifically on the issue of the scope of freedom of expression in the context of municipal elections. The decision, while resolving the immediate dispute, raises many new questions about the future of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ s.2(b) guarantee of freedom of expression. The divide between the majority and dissenting opinion on the role of unwritten constitutional principles also highlights the existing divide between the Supreme Court’s judges regarding Charter interpretation.

Background

On July 27, 2018, shortly after being elected, the Ontario government tabled the Better Local Government Act, SO 2018, c 11 [BLGA]. The BLGA reduced the number of wards in the City of Toronto from 47 to 25 during the City’s ongoing election. The BLGA upended the election, eliminating 22 wards and requiring candidates to pivot their campaigns to new or unfamiliar districts.

Shortly after being enacted on August 14, 2018, a number of parties, including affected candidates and the City of Toronto brought an application seeking to invalidate the BLGA. The parties advanced a few constitutional arguments, including that the BLGA violated ss.2(b) and s.15(1) (equality rights) of the Charter, as well as the unwritten constitutional principles of democracy and the rule of law. The application was heard on an expedited basis on September 9, 2018. In City of Toronto et al v Ontario (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 5151, the application judge held that the BLGA violated both candidates’ and electors’ s.2(b) rights and could not be justified under s.1 of the Charter. Given the s.2(b) violation, the application judge held that it was not necessary to consider the role of unwritten constitutional principles. The application judge invalidated the legislation and restored the 47-ward format for the election.

The government sought an appeal, and an urgent stay, of the application judge’s decision at the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA). In its stay decision, the OCA found that candidates were seeking a positive right to a particular platform, and held that the BLGA did not substantially interfere with expressive freedom. Based on the stay decision, the BLGA remained in force and Toronto’s election proceeded on a 25-ward basis.

A little over a year later, the appeal was heard and decided on its merits. The Asper Centre intervened in the appeal. In Toronto (City) v Ontario (Attorney General), 2019 ONCA 732, the OCA reversed the application judge’s decision and affirmed the constitutionality of the BLGA. Justice Miller, writing for the majority, characterized the claim as a positive one – that the claimants were seeking access to a statutory platform as opposed to freedom from government interference in electoral expression. Applying the case of Baier v Alberta, 2007 SCC 31 [Baier], the Court held that the claimants must demonstrate a substantial interference with freedom of expression but have failed to do so since the government is not required to ensure the effectiveness of expression.

In dissent, Justices Nordheimer and MacPherson would have denied the appeal on a finding that the BLGA violated all electoral participants’ s.2(b) rights. The dissenting justices largely adopted the submissions of the Asper Centre on this point.

The City of Toronto appealed the OCA’s decision.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

Majority

Chief Justice Wagner and Justice Brown wrote the 5-judge majority decision. Like the OCA, the SCC characterized the claim as a positive one, that is that the claimants were seeking access to a particular statutory platform (a 47-ward council). Noting that this appeal was an opportunity to ‘affirm and clarify’ the Baier framework, the Court held that when claimants are seeking to impose an obligation on the government to provide access to a statutory platform for expression, the s.2(b) claim is a positive one (para 24). In such cases, the claimant must demonstrate that lack of access to a statutory platform has substantially interfered with, or “radically frustrated”, expression to such an extent that expression is “effectively precluded” (para 26).

Applying the Baier framework, the Court held that the claim was a positive one, however the City had not demonstrated substantial interference with expression. The Court noted that the Act did not prevent candidates from engaging in political speech or impose conditions on the content or meaning of speech. The Court rejected submissions that the BLGA rendered prior campaigning meaningless, noting that government action that makes prior speech less effective is not a substantial interference with s.2(b). The Court concluded that candidates’ freedom of expression was not radically frustrated and therefore the BLGA did not violate s.2(b).

On the question of the role of unwritten constitutional principles in Charter interpretation, the Court held that these principles – like democracy and the rule of law – could be used for exactly that, and nothing more. Adopting a textual approach to constitutional interpretation, the Court held that unwritten constitutional principles represent general principles underlying the constitutional order, and while they may assist the Court as interpretative tools or to develop structural doctrine, these principles do not have independent legal force.

Dissent

Justice Abella penned the reasons on behalf of the four dissenting judges. They would have allowed the appeal based on a finding that the BLGA violated s.2(b) of the Charter.

The dissent rejected the Baier framework and would have applied the test for a s.2(b) violation from Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec, [1989] 1 SCR 927 [Irwin Toy]. Justice Abella noted that Baier only applies to circumstances where an existing statutory platform is underinclusive, and characterized the claim in this case as government interference with expressive rights attached to an electoral process (para 151). Applying the Irwin Toy framework, Justice Abella held that the BLGA’s timing “interfered with the rights of all participants in the electoral process to engage in meaningful reciprocal political discourse” (para 157). Justice Abella held that since the government had not provided any justification for the legislation’s timing, it could not be saved under s.1.

Justice Abella also commented on the role of unwritten constitutional principles, holding that they are independent of, and form the backdrop to, the written text of the constitution. These principles represent society’s normative commitments and therefore have independent legal force. Per the dissent, in rare cases, unwritten constitutional principles may invalidate legislation that has otherwise escaped the reach of an express constitutional provision.

Where do we go from here?

The majority’s critique of Irwin Toy and affirmation of Baier is notable and perhaps concerning. The majority notes at para 14 that Irwin Toy “has been criticized for setting too low a bar for establishing a s. 2(b) limitation…”. The analysis then continues with a discussion of s.2(b)’s internal limits, the distinction between positive and negative claims, and an affirmation of Baier. While this is a legitimate and existing critique of Irwin Toy, the Court does not expand on why such a broad test is at odds with the text of s.2(b), is normatively problematic, or why or whether it should be changed. However, the Court’s decision has the effect of limiting the applicability of the Irwin Toy framework, and potentially narrowing the scope of s.2(b), and thus adding complexity to s.2(b) litigation. As noted in the dissent at para 155, claimants must now meet a preliminary burden of demonstrating that their s.2(b) claim is a negative entitlement. Adding this inquiry to the s.2(b) analysis is especially concerning given that the distinction between positive and negative entitlement is easily malleable (again, a critique noted by the dissent at para 152 and previous SCC jurisprudence).

Also of note is the very high bar the Court states is required to establish a s.2(b) violation under Baier/City of Toronto. To succeed under this framework a claimant must show that lack of access to a statutory platform has radically frustrated expression to the extent that it is effectively precluded. The substantial interference standard (which was imported from the freedom of association jurisprudence and has since been impugned in that context; see City of Toronto at para 21) thereby recognizes that some interference with expressive freedom is constitutionally permissible. City of Toronto ignites a latent question about s.2(b)’s internal limits and elevates the bar that claimants must meet if a Court considers the claim a positive one.

The decision’s discussion of unwritten constitutional principles also reflects an ongoing divide among SCC judges between a textual and liberal/purposive interpretation of the Charter. While both opinions resolved the dispute on s.2(b) grounds, they nevertheless included a sustained discussion in obiter on unwritten constitutional principles. The majority subscribes a limited role for purposive interpretation, and later notes that notes that unwritten constitutional principles may assist with constitutional interpretation, but only where the test is not sufficiently definitive (para 65). But what is notably absent is any engagement by the majority with the purpose of s.2(b), or the impact of the principle of democracy on the analysis of a case where the scope of s.2(b) is at issue. While Justice Abella recognizes that freedom of expression includes the right to engage in political discourse (paras 114 – 122), the relevance of political discourse or the election context takes a backseat in the majority’s decision. This, in addition to emphasizing the distinction between a positive and a negative claim, is a marked departure from earlier jurisprudence like Irwin Toy that emphasized the purpose of freedom of expression, and  its connection to political discourse, and a broad scope for s.2(b).

In conclusion, the case that came to the Supreme Court was concerned with mid-election reform to Toronto City Council’s structure. However, in destabilizing the s.2(b) framework and narrowing the applicability of unwritten constitutional principles, the SCC’s decision leaves constitutional litigators, scholars, and students with many questions about the future of s.2(b) and constitutional interpretation.

Bailey Fox is a Research Assistant with the Asper Centre and is currently an LLM student at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law. 

R v Chouhan: The Supreme Court of Canada finds room for disagreement

Posted on by Student

 

By Wei Yang

On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its reasons for judgement in R v Chouhan,1 a case that the Asper Centre intervened in last year.

Background

Mr Chouhan was charged with first-degree murder and was thus entitled to a trial by jury. His trial date was scheduled for September 19, 2019, the same day that legislation eliminating peremptory challenges and substituting the trial judge as the trier for challenges for cause took effect.2 Prior to the new law, a limited number of peremptory challenges were available for both the accused and the Crown to dismiss potential jurors without cause.3 Challenges for cause used to be heard by lay triers instead of the trial judge.4

The federal government introduced this legislation in response to the trial of Gerald Stanley, who was charged with murder in the death of Colten Boushie, an Indigenous man. Mr Stanley was acquitted by a jury composed of zero Indigenous persons – a result of Mr Stanley’s peremptory challenges against five Indigenous prospective jurors.5

Mr Chouhan argued before his trial that the elimination of peremptory challenges violated his ss. 7, 11(d), and 11(f) Charter rights.6 If the amendments were constitutional, Mr Chouhan argued that they applied prospectively and not to his trial.7 The trial judge determined that there were other sufficient jury selection protections and the amendments were purely procedural.8 Therefore, the law was constitutional and applied to all trials after entering into force, including Mr Chouhan’s; neither party was entitled to peremptorily challenge any prospective jurors. Mr Chouhan was convicted.

At appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario rejected Mr Chouhan’s constitutional arguments, echoing the trial judge’s finding that other jury-related protections such as representative jury rolls, judicial excusals, and challenges for cause sufficiently preserved Mr Chouhan’s ss. 11(d) and 11(f) rights.9 However, the Court of Appeal held that his substantive right to peremptory challenges was nevertheless affected.10 Therefore, the amendments applied prospectively and Mr Chouhan was entitled to peremptory challenges.11

At the Supreme Court of Canada

The Crown appealed on the temporal applicability issue and Mr Chouhan cross-appealed on the constitutional question.12 The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision from the bench: Wagner CJ declared that a majority of the Court believed that the amendments were constitutional and purely procedural. The appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was restored.

The SCC released its divided reasons eight months later. Writing the joint reasons for judgement (alongside four other sets of reasons) Wagner CJ, Moldaver and Brown JJ held that s. 11(d) does not entitle anyone to a particular jury process.13 The question to be asked on a s. 11(d) challenge is “whether a reasonable person, fully informed of the circumstances, would consider that the new jury selection process gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias so as to deprive accused persons of a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal”, citing Valente v The Queen.14 They agreed with the lower courts that representative jury rolls, the randomness of jury selection, unlimited challenges for cause, and the judge’s power to excuse (or stand aside) prospective jurors protect the independence and impartiality of the tribunal and thus the amendments were constitutional.15 In addition, the changes were purely procedural and applied retrospectively.16 The justices found that abolishing peremptory challenges will likely increase the representativeness of the jury.17 The justices specifically noted, however, that jury diversity is not constitutionally required.18

Wagner CJ, Moldaver and Brown JJ proceeded to define the scope of the existing protections. First, trial judges should consider issuing jury charges and instructions to militate against unconscious bias.19 With challenges for cause, jurors should be asked relevant questions related to circumstances of the case and whether they can set aside compromising beliefs.20 However, the questions must respect juror privacy.21The judge can exercise their discretion to exclude prospective jurors since it is unlikely that individuals will openly admit to their biases.22 Judges can also stand aside prospective jurors if doing so would uphold public confidence.23

Karakatsanis, Martin and Kasirer JJ agreed with the final disposition and the need for robust jury instructions, but cautioned against Wagner CJ, Moldaver and Brown JJ’s description of the scope of the existing jury procedures.24 They opined that it should be left for the lower courts to decide how to interpret and apply the new amendments.25 In addition, one must not rely too heavily on the randomness of jury selection since random selection within an “unequal society” does not eliminate systemic bias.26

Rowe J, in another separate concurring opinion, agreed with the disposition but cautioned against interpreting this judgement as constitutionalizing these jury selection procedures.27 Interpreting these statutes as constitutional requirements would create the absurd consequence of eliminating Parliament’s ability to repeal their own laws, undermining the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.28

Abella J agreed that the amendments were constitutional but dissented on its temporal applicability. In opposition to Wagner CJ, Moldaver and Brown JJ’s more conservative approach, Justice Abella held that as long as judges “vigorously exercise their authority” by using their stand aside power to increase jury diversity and jurors are asked more probing questions when challenged for cause, the accused’s s. 11 rights are sufficiently protected.29 However, the abolition of peremptory challenges still affected a substantive right; the ability for an accused to participate in the empanelment of a jury they themselves view as representative and impartial is a substantive right even if it is not a constitutional one.30 The amendment, therefore, was not purely procedural and did not apply to Mr Chouhan’s trial.31

Côté J, in dissent, claimed Wagner CJ, Moldaver and Brown JJ attempted to create a new jury regime to disguise the fact that the existing one is inadequate.32 The abolition of peremptory challenges creates a gap in the system, violating Mr Chouhan’s s. 11(f) Charter right.33 Stand asides do not sufficiently preserve impartiality because they do not completely eliminate the possibility that the prospective juror will be empanelled.34 Jury rolls are not necessarily representative: when they are sourced from municipal assessment rolls, it prevents some Indigenous persons from being selected.35 Those who have committed certain provincial and criminal offences are also omitted from the jury roll, which excludes many Indigenous and Black persons who are disproportionally represented in the criminal justice system.36 Finally, without peremptory challenges, there is no assurance that jurors will share similar life experiences to the accused, affecting the common sense, competence, and fact finding ability of the jury.37 This infringement cannot be saved under s. 1 of the Charter: it is not rationally connected to the objective of combatting jury discrimination and promoting jury diversity, nor is it minimally impairing (peremptory challenges ought to have been regulated, not eliminated).38 In the alternative, the abolition applied prospectively.39

Implications

The Asper Centre is pleased to see that a majority of the Court shared our view that the amendments were constitutional. The majority of the Court also recognised the reality of unconscious bias, as we stated in our submissions, in addition to affirming the Asper Centre’s argument that peremptory challenges were only one component of a jury selection system that otherwise provides sufficient protections for an accused person.40 However, we recognize the differing views on peremptory challenges in relation to jury representativeness.

Nader Hasan, co-counsel for the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association and the Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers (and adjunct professor at UofT Law and Asper Centre’s Fall 2020 constitutional litigator-in-residence), who intervened to support Mr Chouhan’s cross-appeal, lauded Côté J’s dissent.41 Despite the Court’s disposition, Hasan noted that this decision will empower defence counsel to more aggressively challenge for cause prospective jurors.42

R v Chouhan continues the Supreme Court of Canada’s pattern of divided opinions.43 Although the judgements on the constitutional question and temporal applicability were relatively clear, this decision nevertheless produced five distinct sets of reasons, none of which represented a plurality or majority of the Court. This division likely reflects the diverse views on the effectiveness of peremptory challenges on jury representativeness, as demonstrated by the parties’ submissions. Ultimately, however, this outcome leaves Canadians and lower courts with a clear conclusion but without decisive directions.

Wei Yang is an incoming 2L JD student at the Faculty of Law and is currently one of the Asper Centre’s summer research assistants.

Footnotes:
1. R v Chouhan, 2021 SCC 26 [Chouhan].
2. Ibid at para 1, citing Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, 1st Sess, 42nd Leg, 2019, c 25.
3. Chouhan, supra note 1 at paras 10, 13.
4. Ibid at para 27.
5. Ibid at para 41.
6. Ibid at para 3.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid at para 4.
9. Ibid at paras 6, 35.
10. Ibid at para 6.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid at para 7.
13. Ibid at para 31.
14. Ibid, citing Valente v The Queen, [1985] 2 SCR 673, 1985 CanLII 25.
15. Ibid at paras 33–36.
16. Ibid at para 90.
17. Ibid at para 41.
18. Ibid at paras 43, 74 (citing Abella J at para 164), 79.
19. Ibid at para 49.
20. Ibid at para 64.
21. Ibid at para 66.
22. Ibid at para 67.
23. Ibid at paras 70–71.
24. Ibid at paras 109–111.
25. Ibid at paras 111–112.
26. Ibid at para 114.
27. Ibid at para 126.
28. Ibid at paras 141–142.
29. Ibid at paras 159–161, 165.
30. Ibid at paras 167, 189, 194, 204–205.
31. Ibid at paras 165, 220.
32. Ibid at para 267.
33. Ibid at paras 260, 267.
34. Ibid at para 269.
35. Ibid at para 272.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid at paras 275–277.
38. Ibid at paras 288–291.
39. Ibid at para 293.
40. Ibid (Asper Centre’s factum at paras 2, 3, 20).
41. Nader Hasan, “The Côté J dissent in #Chouhan is [three consecutive fire emojis]. The lead decision, on the other hand, suggests that we can deal with potentially racist jurors with a mid-trial instruction ‘don’t be racist’. [Quote Tweet]” (25 June 2021 at 11:10), online: Twitter <https://twitter.com/Nader_Hasan_law/status/1408442578501001216>.
42. Nader Hasan, “On the plus side, the Chouhan decision as a whole is a clarion call to defence counsel to be aggressive with their challenge-for-cause and stand-aside applications. There is at least some recognition that an important tool has been lost with the abolition of peremptory challenges [Reply Tweet]” (25 June 2021 at 11:10), online: Twitter <https://twitter.com/Nader_Hasan_law/status/1408442579977490435>.
43. Cristin Schmitz, “Supreme Court of Canada Hits Record Low 40% Unanimity Rate in 2019; Many Appeals Came from Quebec” (20 January 2020), online: The Lawyer’s Daily <https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/17529/supreme-court-of-canada-hits-record-low-40-unanimity-rate-in-2019-many-appeals-came-from-quebec> (last modified 21 January 2020).