The Crown appealed declarations of unconstitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences for robbery with a restricted or prohibited firearm (five years under s. 344(1)(a)(i)) and robbery with an ordinary firearm (four years under the former s. 344(1)(a.1)) of the Criminal Code.
The majority held that neither mandatory minimum constituted cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter, finding the offences narrowly defined, high in gravity and moral culpability, and the minimums not grossly disproportionate even in reasonably foreseeable cases.
The Court affirmed the two-stage framework from the companion case R. v. Hills, 2023 SCC 2, and addressed the role of Indigeneity in the s. 12 analysis.
Karakatsanis and Jamal JJ. dissented, concluding both provisions were unconstitutional and should be struck down.
