The accused, charged with sexual offences, brought a motion for directions seeking a declaration that the court was bound by a previous Superior Court decision (R. v. Reddick) which struck down sections 278.92, 278.94(2), and 278.94(3) of the Criminal Code as unconstitutional.
The accused argued this would bypass the need to file a formal Notice of Constitutional Question under Rule 27.
The court dismissed the motion, applying the Court of Appeal's reasoning in R. v. Sullivan that the ordinary principles of stare decisis apply to declarations of invalidity by trial courts, and directed the accused to follow the formal procedure to challenge the provisions.
