Philip J. Star

The appellant pleaded guilty to producing cannabis and challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory firearms prohibition order under s. 109(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

He argued that the mandatory order constituted cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the prohibition has a legitimate connection to drug offences and relates to the recognized sentencing goal of protecting the public.

The Court found that the loss of the privilege to possess firearms is not grossly disproportionate, especially given the ameliorative provision in s. 113 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault.

At trial, the defence sought to cross-examine the complainant on prior inconsistent statements that referred to sexual activity other than the subject matter of the charge.

The trial judge excluded three of these statements under s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge erred in excluding the statements.

The Court held that s. 276 should not be used to prevent cross-examination on material inconsistencies relevant to credibility, especially when the reference to prior sexual activity was inextricably linked to police questioning.