Fergus J. O'Connor

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed by the trial judge for breach of a court order.

The sentencing judge imposed a sentence exceeding the Crown's position without providing the appellant's counsel an opportunity to make further submissions regarding the trial judge's inclination to impose a greater sentence.

The Court of Appeal found this to be an error in procedure.

On review of the fitness of the sentence de novo, the court determined that the Crown's requested sentence was fit and varied the sentence to 12 months less pre-trial custody of 219 days.

The aboriginal appellant appealed his sentence of 30 months' imprisonment for breaching the alcohol abstention condition of his long-term supervision order.

The appellant argued the sentence was unfit, the judge misapprehended evidence, denied enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, and failed to adequately consider his aboriginal status.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that protection of the public was paramount given the appellant's history of violent offences while intoxicated, and that his aboriginal status did not warrant a reduction in this specific context.

Appeal concerning the constitutionality of the federal prisoner voting ban applicable to persons incarcerated in a correctional institution serving sentences of two years or more.

The majority held that the impugned provision infringed the s. 3 Charter right to vote and failed the Oakes proportionality analysis because the government did not establish a rational connection, minimal impairment, or overall proportionality between disenfranchisement and its stated objectives of promoting civic responsibility and enhancing punishment.

The Court emphasized the fundamental nature of voting rights in a constitutional democracy and rejected deference where legislation limits core democratic participation.

The provision was declared of no force or effect under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The appellant, a male prison inmate, challenged the constitutionality of cross-gender frisk searches and unannounced cell patrols conducted by female guards under sections 7, 8, and 15 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that inmates have a substantially reduced expectation of privacy, meaning sections 7 and 8 are not violated by these security practices.

Furthermore, the Court found no violation of section 15 equality rights, noting that the historical, biological, and sociological differences between men and women mean that cross-gender searches do not have the same threatening effect on men as they do on women.

Even if a section 15 breach existed, it would be saved under section 1 due to the important goals of inmate rehabilitation, institutional security, and employment equity.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed decisions finding that section 51(e) of the Canada Elections Act, which disqualified prisoners from voting, was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the provision contravened section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court found that the provision was drawn too broadly and failed the minimal impairment component of the proportionality test under section 1 of the Charter.

The appellants appealed from judgments of the Ontario Court of Appeal regarding the sequence of sentences for escaping lawful custody.

The Court of Appeal had reversed the sequence to make new sentences consecutive to the escape sentences.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals from the bench, finding no error in the majority judgments of the Court of Appeal.

Following a prison disturbance, the respondent inmate was placed in a Special Handling Unit.

He applied for habeas corpus with certiorari in aid to challenge the validity of this confinement.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that provincial superior courts retain jurisdiction to issue certiorari in aid of habeas corpus against federal boards, notwithstanding section 18 of the Federal Court Act.

The Court further held that habeas corpus is available to challenge a distinct and more restrictive form of confinement within a penitentiary, such as a special handling unit, recognizing the concept of a 'prison within a prison'.