Alexandre Duval

The Crown appealed the fitness of the sentence imposed on the first respondent for child luring under s. 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, and both respondents challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences in s. 172.1(2)(a) and (b) as cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter.

The majority held that the sentencing judge committed errors in principle in imposing a five-month concurrent sentence for luring, and increased the sentence to 12 months' imprisonment to be served consecutively.

The mandatory minimum sentences of one year (indictable) and six months (summary) for child luring were found to be grossly disproportionate when applied to reasonably foreseeable offenders and declared of no force or effect under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The dissent would have upheld the mandatory minimums as constitutional.

A naturopath was charged with criminal negligence causing death and unlawful act manslaughter after a patient died of endotoxic shock following an intravenous nutrient injection administered at her clinic, contrary to Quebec's Medical Act.

The trial judge acquitted the accused on both charges after a 39-day trial, finding the intravenous injection was not objectively dangerous in the circumstances and that the accused's conduct did not constitute a marked departure from the reasonable person standard.

The Court of Appeal set aside both acquittals, substituted a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter, and ordered a new trial on the criminal negligence charge.

The Supreme Court majority (5-2) allowed the appeal and restored the acquittals, holding that objective dangerousness is not an independent element of the actus reus of unlawful act manslaughter and that the Court of Appeal improperly replaced the trial judge's factual findings.

The dissent would have ordered a new trial on both charges, finding the unlawful injection was inherently objectively dangerous regardless of the accused's training.