Eric H. Siebenmorgen

The appellant, who had a long history of psychiatric disorders and was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder, challenged the constitutionality of the Criminal Code provisions governing the disposition of NCR accused.

He argued that section 672.54 of the Criminal Code violated sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada, relying on its concurrent decision in Winko, held that the provisions do not violate the Charter as they are carefully crafted to protect the liberty of the NCR accused while ensuring public safety.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing that the jury address by Crown counsel was inflammatory and resulted in an unfair trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed that the address was repugnant to the role of Crown counsel, but the majority held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate to prevent an unfair or partial trial.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was charged with impaired driving causing death.

After a 22-month pre-trial delay, the trial judge stayed the proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal set aside the stay after a 15-month appellate delay.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the pre-trial delay was not unreasonable given the accommodations made for both parties.

The Court further held that s. 11(b) does not apply to appellate delay, and the appellate delay in this case did not violate s. 7 of the Charter as it was not unreasonable and caused no real prejudice.

The appellant was charged with sexual assault on a child and committed for trial 21 months later.

He successfully applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter had been infringed.

The Court of Appeal set aside the stay 14 months later.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that neither the pre-trial delay nor the appellate delay was unreasonable or caused real prejudice to the appellant.

The appellant challenged both the common law rule allowing the Crown to raise insanity over an accused’s objection and the Criminal Code provision requiring automatic detention of an insanity acquittee pending the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor.

The Court held that the common law rule violated s. 7 because it impermissibly deprived an accused of control over the conduct of the defence, and it reformulated the rule so that the Crown may generally raise insanity only after the trier of fact has otherwise concluded the accused is guilty, or where the accused has put mental capacity in issue.

The Court further held that s. 542(2) was intra vires Parliament’s criminal law power, but violated ss. 7 and 9 of the Charter because it mandated automatic, arbitrary, and indeterminate detention without a hearing and without standards.

The appeal was allowed, a judicial stay of proceedings was entered, and the declaration of invalidity was suspended for six months with interim detention limits.