3 total
A provincial court judge lacks jurisdiction under the Firearms Act to review the automatic nullification of a firearm registration certificate caused by an Order in Council.
A reference hearing under Section 74 of the Firearms Act concerning the automatic nullification of a firearm registration certificate.
The applicant, a Lieutenant Commander in the Royal Canadian Navy, sought to challenge the nullification of his registration certificate for a Colt M4 semi-automatic rifle following its reclassification from restricted to prohibited under Order in Council SOR/2020-96 (May 1, 2020).
The court found that the registration certificate was nullified by legislative action, not by a decision of the Registrar of Firearms, and therefore the provincial court judge lacked jurisdiction to hear the reference under Section 74 of the Firearms Act.
The application was dismissed.
A distracted driving conviction was overturned and a new trial ordered because the trial judge improperly categorized the offence as absolute liability and failed to adequately assess credibility.
The appellant was charged with driving while holding a handheld communication device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.
At trial, the Justice of the Peace found the appellant not credible and convicted him, categorizing the offence as one of absolute liability.
The appellant appealed on six grounds, with three main grounds being: (1) the Justice of the Peace erred in categorizing the offence as absolute liability; (2) the Justice of the Peace erred in failing to consider the hands-free exception under section 78.1(3); and (3) the Justice of the Peace erred in applying the test for credibility.
The appeal court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.
The court upheld the 90-day mandatory minimum sentence for child luring despite finding it excessive.
The accused pleaded guilty to child luring by means of a computer contrary to Section 172.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and breach of recognizance contrary to Section 145(3).
The Crown sought the mandatory minimum sentence of 90 days imprisonment.
The defence challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum under Sections 12 and 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing it constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated fundamental justice.
The court rejected both constitutional challenges and imposed the mandatory 90-day sentence to be served intermittently, along with 15 months probation and ancillary orders.
The court expressed significant concern about the appropriateness of the mandatory minimum in the circumstances but found itself bound by Parliament's legislative intent.
