Residential schools

Sentencing of a declared dangerous offender serving a ten-year long-term supervision order for two counts of failing to comply with LTSO conditions, namely cocaine consumption and failure to provide documented financial information.

The court assessed the offender's extensive criminal record of violent robberies, his intractable substance abuse directly linked to violent recidivism, the intergenerational trauma stemming from the residential school and child welfare systems, and his inconsistent rehabilitative engagement, concluding that public protection must predominate as an enhanced sentencing objective notwithstanding applicable Gladue factors.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 10 years' imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea to two counts of operating a motor vehicle while impaired and causing death, two counts of criminal negligence causing death, two counts of operating a motor vehicle while impaired and causing bodily harm, and two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

The collision occurred when the appellant, heavily intoxicated and driving at 187 km/hr, ran a red light and struck another vehicle, killing two passengers and seriously injuring two others.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to seven years, finding the original sentence demonstrably unfit.

The court also set aside victim surcharges and varied the driving prohibition to eight years commencing at the end of imprisonment.

A dissenting opinion would have reduced the sentence to six years, placing greater weight on Gladue factors relating to intergenerational trauma.

The appellant brought a claim under the Independent Assessment Process of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, alleging compensable sexual abuse under category SL1.4 when a nun touched his genitals over his clothing while he was a student at a residential school.

The Hearing Adjudicator denied the claim by erroneously importing a requirement of sexual intent not found in SL1.4.

All internal review levels upheld the denial, and the supervising judge at the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench ordered reconsideration.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal set aside that order, holding the supervising judge had exceeded his jurisdiction.

A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and reinstated the reconsideration adjudicator's compensation award, finding that supervising courts have an ongoing duty to intervene where an adjudicator makes an unauthorized modification of the IAP, and that a gap in the IRSSA justified judicial intervention to ensure the appellant received the compensation bargained for.

This is a ruling on whether the definitions of "Indian" and "Native" person in the Child and Family Services Act violate equality rights under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant society sought summary judgment in a child protection application, requesting that the child be found not to be an Indian or Native person under the Act.

The child's mother is Indigenous and the maternal grandmother is a registered member of the Qalipu Mi'kmak First Nations Band.

However, the child does not have Indian status under the Indian Act because the mother has not applied for membership in the Band.

The court found that the statutory definitions create a distinction based on an analogous ground and perpetuate disadvantage to Indigenous children who do not fall within the narrow definitions, thereby violating section 15(1) of the Charter.

The court granted the child an individual remedy under section 24(1) of the Charter, ordering that the child be treated as if he were an Indian, Native person or Native child for all purposes of the protection application and any related proceedings.

The respondent M.F. made a claim under the Independent Assessment Process (IAP) of the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA), alleging sexual abuse by a priest at a residential school.

The adjudicator found the abuse occurred but rejected the claim on the basis that M.F. did not meet the test for a non-resident/non-student claimant, as the school had closed before the alleged abuse.

The review and re-review adjudicators affirmed this decision.

M.F. brought a request for directions before an administrative judge, who undertook a full review of the IAP decisions and awarded compensation.

The Court of Appeal allowed Canada's appeal, finding that the administrative judge exceeded his jurisdiction by failing to apply the strict limits on judicial recourse established in Schachter v. Canada.

The court clarified that judicial intervention in IAP decisions is limited to very exceptional circumstances where the decision fails to enforce the IRSSA or apply the IAP model.

The matter was remitted to the chief adjudicator for reconsideration in light of newly discovered documents.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery committed against a taxi driver.

The court imposed a sentence of 9.5 months imprisonment followed by two years probation, taking into account the offender's Indigenous background, systemic factors, mental health challenges, and the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody, while balancing the serious nature of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim, and principles of denunciation and deterrence.

A young Aboriginal offender, age 18 at sentencing (17 at the time of offences), was convicted of two counts of discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life and possessing a firearm without a licence.

The offender fired two shots at police officers during an armed confrontation, resulting in the offender being shot four times by police.

The offender sustained severe injuries including loss of sight in one eye, brain injury, and permanent nerve damage.

The court imposed a 24-month probation sentence with strict conditions rather than custody, applying Gladue principles and considering the offender's Aboriginal heritage, background of intergenerational trauma from residential schools, history of bullying, and significant physical and psychological injuries sustained as a result of the incident.

The offender, an Aboriginal man, was convicted of second degree murder following a brutal attack on the victim.

The mandatory sentence was life imprisonment, and the sole issue was the period of parole ineligibility.

The Crown sought 15 years, while the defence sought the minimum 10 years.

The court extensively reviewed the offender's profound intergenerational trauma, including the impact of residential schools on his parents, severe childhood abuse, neglect, and systemic racism, applying the Gladue and Ipeelee principles.

Balancing the gravity of the offence with the offender's reduced moral culpability due to these systemic factors, the court set the period of parole ineligibility at 10 years.

The accused, an Aboriginal woman from Long Lake 58 First Nation, pleaded guilty to trafficking marijuana to three children aged 11 to 14 years.

She was bound by a conditional sentence order at the time of the offence.

The Crown sought six to nine months imprisonment; the defence sought a conditional sentence of six months.

The court imposed four months imprisonment followed by twelve months probation with conditions including abstinence from controlled substances and participation in rehabilitative programs.

A ten-year firearms prohibition was also imposed.

The court balanced the serious nature of trafficking to children with Gladue factors reflecting the accused's history of abuse, neglect, and systemic disadvantage.