Dane F. Bullerwell

The Crown appealed declarations of unconstitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences for robbery with a restricted or prohibited firearm (five years under s. 344(1)(a)(i)) and robbery with an ordinary firearm (four years under the former s. 344(1)(a.1)) of the Criminal Code.

The majority held that neither mandatory minimum constituted cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter, finding the offences narrowly defined, high in gravity and moral culpability, and the minimums not grossly disproportionate even in reasonably foreseeable cases.

The Court affirmed the two-stage framework from the companion case R. v. Hills, 2023 SCC 2, and addressed the role of Indigeneity in the s. 12 analysis.

Karakatsanis and Jamal JJ. dissented, concluding both provisions were unconstitutional and should be struck down.

The appellant was acquitted of sexual assault at trial after the trial judge accepted a child witness's testimony as truthful and reliable, but found the absence of subjective consent was not the only reasonable inference.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and substituted a conviction.

On further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding errors of law apparent on the face of the trial judge's reasons.

The trial judge misapplied the law of circumstantial evidence and the law of consent: the complainant, who was asleep and drugged while being dragged from her bedroom, was statutorily incapable of consenting, and no alternative inference was posited or reasonably available.

The conviction was upheld and the case remitted for sentencing.

In this criminal appeal, the Court considered challenges to the trial judge’s use of alibi and prior-vandalism evidence in upholding convictions for arson and mischief.

A majority dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons of Willcock J.A. and declined to re-examine the governing jurisprudence in the circumstances.

The majority upheld the convictions, while one judge would have allowed the appeal based on the dissenting appellate reasons.