Marva J. Smith

The Crown appealed a decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal regarding the constitutionality of s. 85 of the Criminal Code, which imposes a mandatory minimum consecutive sentence for using a firearm during an indictable offence.

The respondent had committed three armed robberies using a shotgun.

Applying the two-stage test from R. v. Goltz, the Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 85 does not violate s. 12 of the Charter when the underlying offence is robbery.

The appeal was allowed and the trial judge's sentence was restored.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his nine-year-old granddaughter.

At trial, the Crown introduced a videotaped interview of the complainant pursuant to s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The accused challenged the constitutionality of the provision, arguing it violated his rights to a fair trial and fundamental justice under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of s. 715.1, finding that it does not offend the rules against hearsay or prior consistent statements, nor does it violate the right to cross-examine, as the complainant must adopt the video contents while testifying.

The Court emphasized the need to accommodate child witnesses in the justice system and reinstated the accused's conviction.

The Lieutenant Governor in Council of Manitoba referred constitutional questions to the Court of Appeal regarding the validity of provisions in the Public Schools Act under section 23 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the right to minority language educational facilities includes the right to a distinct physical setting.

Applying the sliding scale approach from Mahe, the Court found that the number of potential French language students in Manitoba warranted the establishment of an independent French language school board under the exclusive management and control of the linguistic minority.

The existing provisions of the Public Schools Act failed to meet these constitutional obligations.

The Crown appealed a decision substituting a manslaughter conviction for first-degree murder for a 17-year-old offender.

The respondent cross-appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that section 213(a) of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the Court found that the police failed to comply with section 56 of the Young Offenders Act during the interrogation, rendering the young offender's inculpatory statements inadmissible.

The appeal was dismissed, the cross-appeal was allowed, and a new trial for manslaughter was ordered.