Harshi Mann

A citizen of a self-governing Indigenous First Nation challenged a residency requirement in the First Nation's constitution requiring its Chief and Councillors to reside on settlement land or relocate there within 14 days of election.

The majority held that the Charter applies to the First Nation as a government by nature under s. 32(1), that the residency requirement constitutes a prima facie infringement of the appellant's s. 15(1) equality right, but that s. 25 of the Charter shields the requirement from abrogation or derogation because it protects Indigenous difference tied to ancient land-based governance practices.

Martin and O'Bonsawin JJ. dissented on the appeal, finding the s. 15(1) claim must succeed and s. 25 does not shield internal governance rules from Charter claims brought by community members.

Rowe J. dissented on the cross-appeal, finding the Charter does not apply to the First Nation's exercise of its inherent self-government right.

The appellants, convicted of first-degree murder and attempted murder, appealed their convictions and sentences.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals for first-degree murder convictions, ordering a new trial due to the trial judge's error in restricting routes to liability and failing to leave included offenses (second-degree murder and manslaughter) to the jury.

The court found that the murder and attempted murder charges were not inextricably linked.

The appeals on the attempted murder convictions were dismissed, and leave to appeal the life sentences for attempted murder was granted but the appeals were dismissed, finding no error in principle in the sentencing.

The appellant, M.F., appealed his convictions for three counts of sexual assault and sought leave to appeal his seven-and-a-half-year sentence.

The conviction appeal argued that the trial judge erred in failing to properly consider evidence of the appellant's physical incapacity (shoulder injury and erectile dysfunction).

The sentence appeal argued errors in imposing escalating consecutive sentences and insufficient consideration of the appellant's age as a mitigating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence or insufficient reasons by the trial judge.

While granting leave to appeal sentence, the Court dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the total sentence fit despite an error in escalating individual sentences, given the serious nature of the assaults and the complainant's vulnerability.