Supreme Court of Canada

Federal government needs a stronger foreign affairs power, H. Scott Fairley argues

Posted on by Student

By Daniel Minden

Canadian federalism jurisprudence should provide the federal government with firmer ground to exercise authority over foreign affairs, Toronto lawyer H. Scott Fairley argued last week.  

On February 5, 2026, the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights hosted H. Scott Fairley, with Professor David Schneiderman as discussant, for a Constitutional Roundtable at Jackman Law. Fairley, a partner at Cambridge LLP, presented themes from his recent book Foreign Affairs in the Canadian Constitution (UBC Press, 2025). Fairley argued that an overly broad provincial role in foreign affairs displays disunity and invites aggression, citing James Madison, who wrote that if his country was to be “one nation in any respect, it clearly ought to be in respect to other nations.” 

Historical evolution of the foreign affairs power 

Fairley began by providing an overview of the evolution of the federal foreign affairs power since 1867. Unlike the written constitutions of other federations, Fairley noted that Canada’s Constitution Act, 1867 mostly leaves the issue of foreign affairs unaddressed. This was deliberate, Fairley contended, since Canada’s foreign relations were handled by the British Empire before the First World War. Illustrating this point, s. 132 of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives the federal Parliament “all Powers necessary or proper for performing the Obligations of Canada or of any Province thereof, as Part of the British Empire, towards Foreign Countries, arising under Treaties between the Empire and such Foreign Countries.”  

While s. 132 might have been fit for purpose at the time of Confederation, following the 1923 Canada-U.S. Halibut Treaty Canada began to negotiate its own international treaties. As Canada forged an independent foreign policy in the years that followed, Fairley noted that s. 132 became moribund, since the provision only protects federal authority to implement treaties negotiated by the British Empire.  

As the utility of s. 132 faded, provincial governments, especially the government of Québec, began to assert themselves as international actors. In the 1960s, Québec adopted the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine and claimed a right to conduct international relations in all areas of provincial jurisdiction. 

Tracing the evolution of jurisprudence 

Fairley noted that constitutional jurisprudence in Canada has both protected and constrained the federal government’s ability to implement treaties.  

In the Aeronautics Reference [1931] UKPC 93 (BAILII) and Radio Reference [1932] UKPC 7 (BAILII), the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) held that broadcasting and aeronautics fell within the federal vires, relying in part on the fact that international treaties governed the two matters. However, in the Labour Conventions Reference [1937] UKPC 6 (BAILII), the JCPC held that although the federal government could enter into treaties, the performance of those treaty obligations “depends upon the authority of the competent legislature or legislatures.” In other words, the federal government could not intrude on a provincial vires on the basis that Canada needed to fulfil its treaty obligations. 

The Charter and judicial review of the royal prerogative 

Fairley also pointed out the consequential role of the Charter in enabling courts to review federal Cabinet decisions involving foreign affairs issues. The foreign affairs power exercised by Canada has its basis not in the text of the Constitution Act, 1867 but in the vesting of the royal prerogative in the Canadian government. Until a few decades ago, courts regarded the exercise of the royal prerogative as non-reviewable, Fairley contended. However, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms led courts to accept the reviewability of Cabinet decisions on foreign affairs.  

In the landmark case Operation Dismantle v. The Queen [1985] 1 SCR 441, the Supreme Court of Canada held that “decisions of the federal cabinet are reviewable by the courts under the Charter, and the government bears a general duty to act in accordance with the Charter’s dictates.” The Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle in Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr [2010] 1 SCR 44, when it held that “in the case of refusal by a government to abide by constitutional constraints, courts are empowered to make orders ensuring that the government’s foreign affairs prerogative is exercised in accordance with the constitution.”  

A proposed addition to the national concern doctrine 

Returning to the topic of federalism, Fairley argued that the Supreme Court of Canada should modify its test for the national concern doctrine so that the federal government can more easily claim jurisdiction over foreign affairs matters. 

As the Supreme Court of Canada held most recently in Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (“Greenhouse Gas”), for a matter to be a matter of national concern, over which the federal government can claim jurisdiction under its Peace, Order, and Good Government (POGG) power, the matter must satisfy a three-part test. The matter must (a) be of sufficient concern to Canada as a whole, (b) have a singleness, distinctiveness, and indivisibility that clearly distinguishes it from matters of provincial concern (c) have a scale of impact on provincial jurisdiction that is reconcilable with the fundamental distribution of legislative power under the constitution.  

In Greenhouse Gas the Court also held that part (b) of the test may include a consideration of “the effect on extra‑provincial interests of a provincial failure to deal effectively with the control or regulation of the intra‑provincial aspects of the matter.” This seems to have led Fairley to adopt a proposed addition to the test, which could cut in favour of many foreign affairs issues being intra vires the federal government.  

In his lecture, Fairley proposed that the Supreme Court should add to the test that “national incapacity to address a matter of international concern independent of collective action [through a treaty]” should also be relevant to the determination of distinctiveness and indivisibility under the national concern doctrine. This would enable Canada to argue that global challenges such as pandemics and climate change, which require collective action, are within federal jurisdiction.  

Driving a truck through federal-provincial equilibrium? 

Professor David Schneiderman asked Fairley to consider whether this proposed addition to the national concern doctrine test might weigh too heavily in favour of federal power, threatening the constitutional equilibrium between the provinces and the federal government. Fairley responded that his proposal is consistent with equilibrium in its modern form, noting that Canadian federalism jurisprudence has long abandoned the notion of federal or provincial watertight compartments.  

Fairley argued that any notion that each order of government can act within sterile autonomous spheres divorced from Canada’s obligations abroad is no longer realistic. Rather, there now exists an extensive overlap between the provincial vires and federal vires as the doctrine of cooperative federalism appreciates. For Fairley, despite the importance of federal-provincial cooperation, Canadian courts must appreciate the distinctiveness of matters requiring collective action, where Canada depends on other nations and other nations depend on Canada.  

Fairley wrapped up his talk with a classical allusion by evoking the memory of Themistocles, who helped to unify Athens with its neighbour Piraeus. That unity was essential in enabling Athens to defeat an invasion by a more powerful Persian force. 

Daniel Minden is a Research and Communications Assistant with the Asper Centre. He is a 1L JD candidate at the University of Toronto Jackman Faculty of Law. 

Re-opening the Gosselin door: the Asper Centre hosts a Symposium on Litigating Positive Rights

Posted on by Student

By Daniel Minden

Twenty-four years after Gosselin v. Québec, 2002 SCC 84, in which the Supreme Court of Canada left the door open for the recognition of freestanding, positive rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a series of experts hosted by the Asper Centre argued that litigators should renew the push for judicial enforcement of positive rights. 

On January 16, 2026, the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights hosted a symposium on litigating positive rights under the Charter at the Henry N.R. Jackman Faculty of Law. Co-chaired by the Cheryl Milne of the Asper Centre and Professor David Schneiderman of the Jackman Faculty of Law, the event considered how litigators can seize the potential of the Charter to argue that governments have positive constitutional obligations to their citizens – including in the areas of climate, housing, and health policy. This blog post focuses on selected portions of the Symposium’s plenary sessions, although the day’s agenda also included concurrent panels covering specific policy areas. 

Enforcing positive social rights in an anti-democratic era 

In a keynote address to launch the symposium, Professor Aoife Nolan of the University of Nottingham School of Law set the tone for the day. Nolan argued that democracy and social rights are co-dependent, and that litigators have a role to play in protecting both.  

Drawing on her experience as President of the Council of Europe’s European Committee of Social Rights, Nolan contended that positive rights litigation is an important means of reinforcing and sustaining democracy. Nolan noted that her quasi-judicial body has held that social rights permit the exercise of democratic rights: in European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v. Greece (Complaint No. 15/2003), the Committee found that the right to housing enabled the exercise of political rights. Nolan also argued that healthy democracies are best able to fulfil social rights, referring to Nobel laureate Amartya Sen’s thesis that functioning democracies with a free press do not experience substantial famines. 

The connection between social rights and democracy can help to explain the rise of anti-democratic forces, Nolan argued, referencing research which demonstrates a positive correlation between citizens’ concerns over access to goods and services, and support for far-right parties. In a call to action to attendees, Nolan insisted that litigation is a “key mechanism to flag gaps and bring about government action in areas such as housing, social protection, and employment,” which in turn, helps to maintain confidence in democracy.  

Room for optimism about positive rights in Canada? 

Following Nolan’s lecture, Professor Joel Bakan of the University of British Columbia’s Allard School of Law provided an historical overview of attempts to litigate positive Charter rights in Canada. Bakan recounted that Canadian courts have persistently rejected the notion that the Charter protects ‘freestanding’ positive rights, i.e., rights that “obligate state actors to provide some protection or benefit regardless of whether they have already provided a version of that protection or benefit.” In contrast, Bakan asserted that Canadian courts have been willing to recognize ‘contingent’ positive rights, i.e. rights which “obligate state actors to extend or expand some protection or benefit they have already provided a version of.” Bakan noted Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 1997 CanLII 327 (SCC) and Vriend v. Alberta, 1998 CanLII 816 (SCC), as examples of the Supreme Court recognizing contingent positive rights.  

In the landmark Gosselin case, the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to establish a freestanding positive right claimed by a welfare recipient appellant. The Court held that “nothing in the jurisprudence thus far suggests that s. 7 places a positive obligation on the state to ensure that each person enjoys life, liberty or security of the person. Rather, s. 7 has been interpreted as restricting the state’s ability to deprive people of these.” The Court found that “such a deprivation does not exist in the case at bar,” but also left the door open to recognizing positive obligations created by s. 7 in a future case.  

Dissenting Justice Louise Arbour took a broader view of the word ‘deprive.’ She found that “there is no sense in which the actual language of s. 7 limits its application to circumstances where there has been positive state interference,” since the “concept of deprivation is sufficiently broad to embrace withholdings that have the effect of erecting barriers in the way of the attainment of some object.” Bakan argued that in later contingent positive rights cases, the Court has seemingly embraced Arbour’s expansive understanding of ‘deprivation.’ In Bakan’s interpretation, the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in which it has recognized contingent positive rights “depend upon and affirm” Arbour’s view that “a right can be deprived, breached, violated [or] limited by omission as much as by action.” In Bakan’s view, the court’s simultaneous acceptance of contingent positive rights and rejection of freestanding positive rights is inconsistent.  

Finally, Bakan addressed the concern that freestanding positive rights risk transforming judges into legislators. While acknowledging the need for caution, Bakan pointed to Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), 2003 SCC 62, as a proof of concept for navigating justiciability issues. In Doucet-Boudreau, the trial judge held that the province of Nova Scotia had to deploy its best efforts to uphold French-language education rights in the province. Rather than ordering a specific policy solution for the Nova Scotia government to pursue, the trial judge retained jurisdiction and monitored the government’s progress. The Supreme Court upheld the trial judge’s remedy as an appropriate exercise of judicial authority since the remedy left “detailed choices of means largely to the executive.” For Bakan, Doucet-Boudreau indicates how freestanding positive rights arising from Charter interpretation (as opposed to textually explicit positive rights such as ss. 14 and 23) might be judicially enforced in Canada if recognized by the Court. 

Bakan was followed by New York University JSD student Henry Federer and Osgoode Hall Law School Assistant Professor Anthony Sangiuliano, who presented their upcoming articles on positive rights. As an alternative to the dichotomy between positive and negative rights, Federer proposed a ‘two-tier’ methodology for characterizing Charter rights which initially characterizes a right as imposing a negative duty on the state or imposing a positive obligation on the state. Then, the methodology characterizes the right a second time to elucidate whether the right, once engaged, creates a secondary duty or obligation for the state.  

Following Federer’s presentation, Sangiuliano argued that positive constitutional rights are predicated on findings that state omissions have caused a violation of the relevant right. Sangiuliano posited that such findings are not empirical, but normative: such a finding is predicated on the notion that the state has a duty to prevent an outcome. For Sangiuliano, the ‘exposition’ of judicial decisions can help reveal the normative assumptions that underly judicial findings of state omissions.  

Addressing judicial anxieties about positive rights 

The separation of powers concerns referenced by Bakan were also addressed in an afternoon plenary session on judicial anxieties about positive rights. Associate Professor Benjamin Perryman of the University of New Brunswick argued that the separation of powers between the three branches of government is a misnomer and should be reconceived as the overlapping of powers. Perryman contended that the judiciary has a role in explaining how the overlap ought to function in practice and pointed towards foreign jurisprudence to indicate how Canadian courts might go about this task. 

Both Professor Kent Roach of Jackman Law and Professor Margot Young of the University of British Columbia’s Allard School of Law argued forcefully against a distinction between positive and negative rights at all. Roach noted that the Charter rights implicated in criminal law, though often framed in negative terms in the text of the Charter, in effect create positive obligations for the state. For instance, s. 12 implicitly requires the state to invest in correctional facilities so that they do not amount to venues for cruel and unusual punishment. For Roach, the positive versus negative rights dichotomy is a false distinction.  

Young made a similar argument, asserting that the Charter is at a moment of “existential crisis” because Canadian courts have “failed to give force to the full potential for the Charter as an instrument of social justice.” Young argued that the Supreme Court’s concept of substantive equality in interpreting s. 15(1) requires recognition of positive state obligations if it is to mean anything – and that a real commitment to social equality requires doing away with the distinction between positive and negative obligations.  

Young quoted from the American scholar S. F. Kreimer, who writes that “appropriate verbal manipulations can easily move most cases across the line between positive and negative obligations,” and from the University of Ottawa’s Martha Jackman, who has written that “the distinction between state action and inaction, and between positive and negative rights, has been entirely discredited under international human rights law.” Young asserted that the courts’ proclivity to distinguish between positive and negative rights is explained by a desire to protect the separation of powers. For Young, however, the separation of powers “requires judicial enforcement of the Charter to its full remedial purpose.” 

This afternoon plenary panel also included a presentation by Associate Professor Angela Cameron of the University of Ottawa and Toronto lawyer Lara Koerner-Yeo of JFK Law LLP, who examined the role of the presumption of conformity (between Canadian legislation and international treaty obligations) in ss. 7 and 15 Charter litigation. Research by Cameron and Koerner-Yeo indicates very little litigation in which the presumption of conformity has been raised in support of positive rights claims. However, Cameron and Koerner-Yeo noted that the presumption is increasingly invoked in s. 35 litigation.  

Daniel Minden is a Research and Communications Assistant with the Asper Centre. He is a 1L JD candidate at the University of Toronto Jackman Faculty of Law. 

Asper Centre Calls for Stronger Role for Public Interest Interveners in Canadian Courts

Posted on by Tal Schreier

On September 9, 2025, the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights released its new report, More than Busybodies – Asper Centre Report. The report makes the case for strengthening the role of public interest interveners, who provide courts with essential perspectives that go beyond the positions of the immediate parties.

Drawing on research by Asper Centre students and staff, as well as a March 2025 Roundtable with leading practitioners and organizations that regularly intervene, the report highlights barriers that too often prevent interveners from contributing fully, including inconsistent leave decisions, restrictive procedures, and a lack of transparency.

To address these challenges, the report offers concrete recommendations to improve the intervention process, such as requiring courts to give reasons when denying leave, shielding interveners from cost awards, and ensuring adequate time for oral arguments.

“Public interest interveners are not mere busybodies—they bring diverse perspectives and lived experience that help courts see the broader stakes of constitutional litigation,” the report stresses.

With nearly 70% of Supreme Court of Canada cases in recent years featuring interveners, the Asper Centre underscores that their role is critical to the development of constitutional law. By adopting the report’s recommendations, Canadian courts can ensure that public interest voices are not sidelined but empowered to contribute meaningfully to justice.

Read More than Busybodies – Asper Centre Report

The State Is Not Immune: The Supreme Court Affirms that Crown Can be Held Liable in Damages for Unconstitutional Laws

Posted on by Tal Schreier

by Vlad Mirel, with Neil Abraham and Megan Stephens

In a 5-4 split, the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Attorney General) v. Power held that damages may be awarded to those affected by Charter-violating laws. Although the threshold that must be met to be awarded damages remains high, the Supreme Court has confirmed that the Crown does not have complete immunity from damages. Significantly, the Supreme Court’s view achieves a balance between important legislative privileges which weigh in favour of absolute immunity, and the Charter rights of all Canadians that favour no immunity.

Background

In 1996, Mr. Power was convicted of two indictable offenses and sentenced to eight months imprisonment. After serving his sentence, he received his x-ray technician diploma and became a medical radiation technician at a New Brunswick hospital. Over a decade later, Mr. Power’s employer received a tip about his criminal record and his employment was terminated. Mr. Power was subsequently unable to find new employment due to his record and decided to apply for a record suspension. Record suspensions enable those who have served their sentences and have demonstrated they are law abiding citizens to remove their criminal record from the Canadian Police Information Centre’s database and thus help them access employment.

While at the time of his conviction, Mr. Power could apply for a record suspension five years after his release, subsequent legislation made Mr. Power permanently ineligible for a record suspension. This legislation was soon declared unconstitutional by the courts. Mr. Power argued that he was owed damages under s. 24(1) of the Charter based on the breach of rights he suffered from the unconstitutional legislation.

Mackin Revisited

Much of this case was based upon revisiting the decision in Mackin v. New Brunswick (Minister of Finance), where the Supreme Court held that the Crown could be liable for damages if legislation was clearly unconstitutional, adopted in bad faith or an abuse of power. Canada sought to overturn Mackin in this appeal by arguing that it was entitled to absolute immunity in order to preserve its legislative privilege and protect the separation of powers. Parliamentary privilege plays an important role within Canadian politics, ensuring the legislature is able to execute its functions without fear of external review. Canada argued that if it were subject to damages, it would represent a loss of this privilege. Furthermore, Canada argued that the judiciary should not be able to demand the Crown pay damages as these two entities must be kept in isolation from each other based on the separation of powers.

Decision

The Asper Centre intervened in this appeal and its submissions can be traced throughout the majority’s decision. The Supreme Court agreed that adopting absolute immunity would ignore important constitutional principles of equal significance to legislative privilege. Instead, the Court approached the question by asking how s. 24(1) could be interpreted in a way that would reconcile these Canadian constitutional principles, including constitutionality and the rule of law, rather than allowing legislative privilege to trump Charter rights.

First, the Supreme Court held that forcing the Crown to pay damages for unconstitutional laws drafted by Parliament would not be a threat to parliamentary privilege. While legislative privilege ensures those creating legislation are free from external review, it does not extend the same protections to the state itself. Thus, as the damages would be levied upon the Crown rather than individuals, limited immunity would present no threat to this parliamentary privilege.

The Court also found that limiting the state’s immunity is consistent with the separation of powers, as each branch does not work in total isolation. Holding the legislature accountable for its misuse of power would not constitute judicial interference.

Having upheld the ruling in Mackin and reiterated the state’s limited immunity, the Court moved to clarify aspects of Mackin. In accordance with the Asper Centre’s own submissions, the majority first clarified that the “clearly wrong” (now termed “clearly unconstitutional”) threshold required for damages to be awarded is based on an objective standard. Thus, a claimant must demonstrate that it was clear at the time of the law’s enactment that the state would be violating Charter rights. By adding this objective standard, the Supreme Court has permitted plaintiffs to seek damages by arguing for the rights-violating effects of the respective law rather than requiring them to explicitly demonstrate any bad faith. However, a demonstration of Parliament’s bad faith would still provide an effective way of receiving damages.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court affirmed the three-part test established in Vancouver (City) v. Ward for determining whether damages ought to be awarded in the case of a Charter breach.  Now, the Power “clearly unconstitutional” threshold will be utilized to inform the third part of the Ward test, which asks whether the state has demonstrated that countervailing factors do not support damages being awarded. Thus, when investigating Charter damages, state immunity is considered within a wider three-part test rather than as a preliminary question.

Dissent in Part

Justices Jamal and Kasirer dissented in part. Although they agreed with the majority that a clearly unconstitutional law should lead to an award of damages, they disagreed that a demonstration of the Crown’s “bad faith” should achieve the same result. In Justice Jamal and Kasirer’s opinion, examining the intention of legislators in creating a law would represent the judiciary “second guessing” the legislature, and thus permit the judiciary to intrude upon legislative privilege. Thus, a Court deciding whether to award damages should only inquire if a law was clearly unconstitutional at the time of its creation and not if it was enacted in bad faith.

Dissent

In dissent, Justice Rowe and Côté argued that Canada should be allotted absolute immunity. Rowe and Côté expressed concerns that enabling courts to hold the Crown liable in damages effectively forces courts to adopt a supervisory role over the legislative process. Broadly speaking, both Justices agreed with Canada’s submissions, deciding that forcing the state to be held liable in damages for an unconstitutional law would stand in direct contradiction to legislative privilege. Furthermore, the separation of powers directly precludes the judiciary from scrutinizing the legislative process.

Looking Forward

The Supreme Court in Power has confirmed that state immunity is not absolute and has clarified the framework that future litigants will utilize when seeking damages for Charter breaches. Those who attack laws based on their unconstitutionality must orient their pleadings in a way that show “clear” rights violations which meet the “clearly unconstitutional” threshold. Proving that an impugned law has achieved this level of unconstitutionality will likely require utilizing precedent, which demonstrates the importance of employing language from existing authorities to prove the adverse effects of legislation.

Megan Stephens and Neil Abraham, the Asper Centre’s counsel in this intervention, commented that although the “clearly unconstitutional” threshold for damages has now been confirmed, it is unknown what form this threshold will truly take in practice. Instead, it is only through the resolution of future cases on this issue that the threshold will become clearly defined. Despite this uncertainty, Stephens and Abraham argue that the open-ended nature of “clearly unconstitutional” signifies that plaintiffs still have more than enough space to bring and argue their claims.

Stephens and Abraham also note that Power will be highly relevant for cases challenging laws passed through the notwithstanding clause. Parties to such cases should consider utilizing the invocation of the clause as proof that the legislature passed the law recklessly or in bad faith. Indeed, there are many cases in the lower courts that are currently challenging laws passed through s. 33, such as gender identity cases in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, as well as religious symbols and language cases in Quebec.

Lastly, it remains to be seen whether Power will enable claimants to receive individual remedies under s. 24(1) even where the law cannot be struck down due to s. 33. In much of this future litigation, the language utilized in Power that balanced Charter rights with legislative principles will likely be used to evaluate how constitutional supremacy can be balanced with the legislative use of s. 33.

Vlad Mirel, U of T Law JD Candidate and Asper Centre Summer RA, with Neil Abraham and Megan Stephens, pro-bono counsel acting for the Asper Centre in the Power intervention

R v Sharma: Supreme Court of Canada upholds legislation limiting conditional sentences despite Indigenous over-incarceration concerns

Posted on by Tal Schreier

by Kailyn Johnson

In a 5-4 split, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of sections 742.1(c) and 742.1(e)(ii) of the Canadian Criminal Code (R v Sharma, 2022 SCC 39 at paras 2-4 [Sharma]). These sections of the Criminal Code, which were amended in 2012, limit access to conditional sentences for certain classes of offences.[1] 

Ms. Cheyenne Sharma challenged the constitutionality of the two provisions under sections 7 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). She argued that the provisions were unconstitutional under section 7 of the Charter because they arbitrarily and overbroadly limit the freedom of offenders (Sharma at para 85). Additionally, she asserted that the legislation was unconstitutional under section 15(1) of the Charter because it disproportionately and negatively affects Indigenous offenders (Sharma at para 72). This, she contended, violates the right to equality before the law, derived from section 15(1). Ms. Sharma is of Ojibwa ancestry and a member of the Saugeen First Nation (Sharma at para 5). 

In 1996, Parliament introduced section 742.1 of the Criminal Code, creating the framework of the conditional sentence. The bill also included section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code which instructed courts to consider alternatives to imprisonment, appropriate under the circumstances, “with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders” (Sharma at para 130). Both these provisions were designed to address Indigenous over-incarceration in Canadian prisons. The 2012 amendments, however, reduced judges’ discretion in limiting prison sentences for Indigenous offenders. 

Background on the case 

In 2015, Ms. Sharma was caught smuggling nearly 2 kilograms of cocaine into a Toronto airport. Ms. Sharma pleaded guilty to importing a controlled substance and was sentenced to 18 months in prison (Sharma at para 81). Ms. Sharma seemed to be an ideal candidate for a conditional sentence (Sharma at para 224). She had no previous criminal record. At only 20 years old, Ms. Sharma was her child’s sole provider. At the time of the offence, Ms. Sharma had little support and no financial resources. She was on the verge of eviction. She had smuggled the drugs after her then-partner offered her $20,000 to transport them from Suriname to Toronto, where she was apprehended (Sharma at para 5-6, 116). 

Furthermore, a Gladue report revealed that Ms. Sharma was subject to tremendous intergenerational trauma.[2] Her grandmother was a residential school survivor. Her mother had been placed in foster care. Ms. Sharma herself had been assaulted, forced to drop out of school, and struggled with substance abuse (Sharma at para 6, 121). At the time of sentencing, Ms. Sharma had moved to reserve lands and was receiving help for her substance use issues while working towards her high school diploma (Sharma at para 121). Ms. Sharma’s circumstances and the Indigenous over-incarceration crisis were a few of many compelling reasons for Ms. Sharma to complete her sentence in the community rather than in prison. 

Procedural History 

The trial judge determined that Ms. Sharma was ineligible for a conditional sentence due to the 2012 amendment, 742.1(c). This amendment prohibits offenders who are convicted of offences which carry maximum prison terms of 14 years or life, from receiving conditional sentences, even if the offender themselves receives a much shorter term. Ms. Sharma challenged the constitutionality of this provision and also 742.1(e)(ii), which prohibits offenders convicted of certain offences, including drug trafficking, from receiving a conditional sentence if the maximum penal term for the crime is 10 years or more. The trial judge dismissed her constitutional challenge under section 15 of the Charter (Sharma at para 20). At the time, Ms. Sharma did not include her section 7 challenges in oral arguments (Sharma at para 15). Ms. Sharma appealed this verdict and her sentence. 

At the Ontario Court of Appeal, Ms. Sharma renewed her challenge to the legislation under both section 7 and section 15 of the Charter. The majority of the court struck down the provisions as unconstitutional (Sharma at para 21). They held that both provisions were overbroad under section 7 of the Charter and impermissible under section 15(1) because they discriminated against Indigenous offenders (Sharma at paras 22-23). The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. 

Majority at the Supreme Court of Canada 

The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held that sections 742.1(c) and 742.1(e)(ii) are constitutional under section 7 of the Charter. While the amendments do inhibit “the right to life, liberty, and security of the person” guaranteed by section 7, through imprisonment, they do so in “accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” (Sharma at para 85). The statutes are neither arbitrary nor overbroad. 

The majority also upheld sections 742.1(c) and 742.1(e)(ii) as constitutional under section 15 of the Charter. Section 15(1) guarantees: 

  1. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. 

The majority concluded that Ms. Sharma failed to meet the evidentiary burden required for a successful section 15 challenge. To succeed, Ms. Sharma would need to show 1) that the legislation disproportionately affected Indigenous people and 2) the disproportionate effects of the legislation reinforce, exacerbate, perpetuate, or create disadvantage. The Court found that Ms. Sharma failed to produce evidence which showed the legislation disproportionately impacts Indigenous offenders (Sharma at para 67, 76). The majority found that “historic or systemic disadvantage” alone was not enough to establish the disproportionate impact of this specific legislation on Indigenous offenders (Sharma at para 71). The analysis emphasizes a requirement to show causation through evidence that the impugned law “created or contributed to” the disproportional impact on the claimant group (Sharma para 45). Both amendments were upheld under section 15 because the arguments failed step one of the test due to the lack of evidence of causation. 

Dissent at the Supreme Court of Canada 

Four justices of the Supreme Court dissented to the majority holding in Sharma. Karakatsanis J., writing for the dissent, found both provisions unconstitutional, breaching both section 7 and section 15(1) of the Charter. Section 7 was breached because the revisions are overbroad (Sharma at para 118). By using the maximum sentence of a crime as a proxy for its seriousness, the legislation captures not only serious offenders but also offenders whose crimes were only potentially serious (at para 164). For example, if two offenders are convicted of the same crime, both will share the same maximum sentence. Yet the offender sentenced to only 1 year in prison has only committed a potentially serious crime, while the offender sentenced to 14 years imprisonment has committed a serious crime. Despite the differences in severity and actual penal term, both are barred from conditional sentencing by the same provision. Thus, the legislation captures offenders outside its intended scope (serious crimes) and is therefore overbroad. 

The dissent also held that both 742.1(c) and 742.1(e)(ii) are unconstitutional under section 15(1). The dissent recognizes that Indigenous over-incarceration is a result of Canada’s colonial history (Sharma at para 114). While sentencing laws cannot change this past or heal the social issues leading to over-incarceration, they are uniquely positioned to address or exacerbate the effects. 

The dissent applies the same test as the majority but states that the majority’s clarification “seek[s] to revise the test” and “resurrect[s] their rejected arguments in Alliance and Fraser” contrary to stare decisis” (Sharma at para 204). The dissent observes that facially equal treatment under the law may lead to unequal results (Sharma at para 187). The Gladue framework was specifically designed to combat this issue. By considering Indigenous circumstances during sentencing decisions, the courts were working towards achieving substantive equality. The amendments to section 742, however, limit access to conditional sentences and other remedial tools. While the legislation applies to all offenders, it distinguishes by race because it prevents Indigenous offenders from using the Gladue framework (Sharma at para 233). The legislation thus compels judges to give harsh prison sentences to Indigenous offenders where a lesser sentence may otherwise have been appropriate because of Gladue principles. Only Indigenous offenders are impacted in this way and imposing prison sentences exacerbate historic and systemic disadvantages (Sharma at para 237). Therefore, the dissent finds that the statutes are unconstitutional under section 15 of the Charter. 

Impacts of the Sharma decision 

There were 21 interveners in the Sharma case at the Supreme Court of Canada level.  In its factum, the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights (“Asper Centre”) argued that, because the criminal justice system plays a causal role in the disadvantage of Indigenous peoples, section 15 of the Charter imposes a positive remedial duty (Factum of the Intervener the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights at para 1). The majority of the Court dismissed this argument, finding that “15(1) does not impose a general, positive obligation on the state to remedy social inequalities or enact remedial legislation” (Sharma at para 63). Chris Rudnicki, a criminal lawyer and lecturer at Lincoln Alexander School of Law, called this particular result “profoundly disappointing.”[3] 

In their factum at the Court of Appeal, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (“LEAF”) and the Asper Centre submitted evidence from Statistics Canada and government reports of the growing rates of over-incarceration of Indigenous people in Canada. From 2007/2008 to 2017/2018, admissions of Indigenous men to prison increased 28%. Admission of Indigenous women to custody increased 60%. Indigenous incarceration rates are also grossly disproportionate. Indigenous people make up only 4% of the Canadian adult population, yet they account for 30% of all admissions to provincial and territorial custody (Factum of the Interveners Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund and the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights at para 8). The statistical evidence included in the intervening submissions confirms the conclusions of the Ontario Court of Appeal about the over-incarceration of Indigenous women.  

The majority at the Supreme Court of Canada had serious concerns about the intervening parties’ submissions. “Interveners creating a new evidentiary record at the appellate level undermines the trial process” they concluded (Sharma at para 75). However, the majority of the Supreme Court failed to identify why they found it objectionable to include the intervening submissions in the evidentiary record. The decision to diminish the role of interveners, thus largely dismissing their evidence, was heavily critiqued by the dissent. This was one of the reasons the dissent found that “My colleagues’ revisions are not only unsolicited, unnecessary, and contrary to stare decisis; they would dislodge foundational premises of our equality jurisprudence. This is not “clarification”; it is wholesale revision” (Sharma at paras 205-206). Overall, LEAF feels the Sharma decision “will make future equality rights claims more difficult.”[4]  

The decision has serious repercussions on Indigenous peoples, as the dissent observed. The impugned provisions force the hands of judges to impose harsher sentences on Indigenous offenders than they may have otherwise (Sharma at 238). These prison sentences are often contrary to Indigenous principles of justice such as community healing, reconciliation, and reintegration of the offender (Sharma at para 214, 240). They also remove Indigenous people from their community, family, and culture, thereby stripping them of their support (Sharma at para 240). The decision fails to realize the objectives of section 718.2(e), to consider sentences alternative to prison terms, “with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.” Sharma fails to meaningfully address Indigenous over-incarceration. The continued enforcement of 742.1(c) and 742.1(e)(ii) may reinforce cycles of intergenerational trauma. 

While reactions to the Court’s decision were largely negative,[5] Ms. Sharma’s lawyer, Nader Hasan, LEAF, and many others are using this as a rallying cry to pass Bill C-5.[6] If enacted, Bill C-5 would amend both the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, repealing mandatory minimum sentences for a variety of offences. This would allow for greater judicial discretion when assessing the individual circumstances of offenders during sentencing as well as to increase the usage of conditional sentences. These proposed changes are designed to curb the over-incarceration of Black and Indigenous people in Canadian prisons.[7] 

Kailyn Johnson is a 1L JD candidate at the Faculty of Law and is a member of the Asper Centre’s Consent and Constitution student working group. 

[1] Conditional sentences are an alternative to serving a term in prison. Instead, individuals who meet legislative criteria and are not deemed a safety threat to their communities can serve their sentence in the community, under surveillance, with specific requirements. 

[2] Gladue reports collect relevant personal information on Indigenous offenders during the sentencing stage of a trial. These reports are used to tailor a prison sentence to suit both the individual circumstances of the offender as well their community. This may include information on the individual’s family history, culture, hereditary laws, and values. Reintegration, reconciliation, and community healing may be special considerations when sentencing Indigenous offenders (Gladue at para 214). 

[3] Chris Rudnicki, [@chrisrudnicki], ““There is no general, positive obligation on the state to remedy social inequalities or enact remedial legislation, nor is the legislature bound to its current policies.” A profoundly disappointing result in R v Sharma, 2022 SCC 39,” Twitter, 4 Nov 2022 

[4] Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, “Supreme Court decision fails to address the mass incarceration of Indigenous women and makes equality rights claims more difficult,” 4 Nov 2022, https://www.leaf.ca/news/supreme-court-decision-fails-to-address-the-mass-incarceration-of-indigenous-women-and-makes-equality-rights-claims-more-difficult/. 

[5] Lisa Kerr [@coleenlisa], “This is a hard one to report. R v. Sharma. In a 5:4 decision, majority holds that Criminal Code sections that prevent conditional sentences do not limit s. 7 or s. 15 rights,” Twitter, 4 Nov 2022, Nader Hassan, [@Nader_Hassan_law], “ While today’s decision in #Sharma is beyond disappointing, the policy justification for #BillC5 is just as sound as ever. Parliament needs to address Indigenous mass incarceration,” Twitter, 4 Nov 2022, 

[6] Nader Hasan, [@Nader_Hasan_law], “While today’s decision in #Sharma is beyond disappointing, the policy justification for #BillC5 is just as sound as ever. Parliament needs to address Indigenous mass incarceration,” Twitter, 4 Nov 2022; Criminal Lawyers Association, [@ClaOntario], “Today’s @SCC_eng decision in R v. Sharma drives home the importance of Bill C-5. We call on the @SenateCA to pass C-5 quickly so that judges once again have discretion to craft fit sentences that take into account experiences with #systemicracism,” Twitter, 4 Nov 2022, 

[7] Department of Justice Canada, “Bill C-5: Mandatory Minimum Penalties to be repealed,” 7 Dec 2021, https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2021/12/mandatory-minimum-penalties-to-be-repealed.html.