35678 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL

47 Pages·2014·0.3 MB·English

by  Rebecca Bennett

S.C.C. No.: 35678
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
APPELLANT
(Respondent)
-and-

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
APPELLANT
(Intervener)
- and –

HUSSEIN JAMA NUR
RESPONDENT
(Appellant)
- and –

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH
COLUMBIA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC, PIVOT LEGAL SOCIETY, JOHN
HOWARD SOCIETY OF CANADA, CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION,
BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION, THE ADVOCATES'
SOCIETY, THE CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION, CANADA'S NATIONAL
FIREARMS ASSOCIATION, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY LIVING
and AFRICAN CANADIAN LEGAL CLINIC
INTERVENERS

FACTUM OF THE RESPONDENT, HUSSEIN JAMA NUR
(Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada)

DERSTINE, PENMAN SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP
302 - 559 College Street 340 Gilmour Street, Suite 100
Toronto, ON M6G 1A9 Ottawa, ON K2P 0R3

Dirk Derstine Marie-France Major
Janani Shanmuganathan Thomas Slade
Tel.: [phone] Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
[email protected]

Counsel for the Respondent, Hussein Ottawa Agents for Counsel for the
Jama Nur Respondent, Hussein Jama Nur
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Suite 3400, Box 36 Department of Justice Canada
130 King Street West 50 0’Connor Street, Suite 500, Room 556
Toronto, ON M5X 1K6 Ottawa, ON K2P 6L2

Nancy Dennison
Richard Kramer Robert J. Frater
Tel.: [phone] Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the Appellant, the Attorney Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the
General of Canada Appellant, the Attorney General of Canada

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO BURKE-ROBERTSON
720 Bay Street, 10th Floor 441 MacLaren Street, Suite 200
Toronto, ON M5G 2K1 Ottawa, ON K2P 2H3

Riun Shandler
Andreea Baiasu Robert E. Houston, Q.C.
Tel.: [phone] Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the Appellant, Her Majesty Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the
the Queen Appellant, Her Majesty the Queen

PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU QUÉBEC NOËL & ASSOCIÉS
1200, Route de l'Église, 2ème étage 111, rue Champlain
Québec, QC G1V 4M1 Gatineau, Quebec J8X 3R1

Sylvain Leboeuf
Julie Dassylva Pierre Landry
Tel.: [phone] Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the
General of Quebec Intervener, Attorney General of Quebec
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH BURKE-ROBERTSON
COLUMBIA 441 MacLaren Street, Suite 200
940 Blanshard Street, 3rd Floor Ottawa, ON K2P 2H3
P.O. Box 9245 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria, BC V8W 3E6
Robert E. Houston, Q.C.
Rodney G. Garson Tel.: [phone]
Tel.: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the
Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney Intervener, Attorney General of British
General of British Columbia Columbia

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON
Appeals Branch LLP
300, 332 - 6th Avenue S.W. 2600 - 160 Elgin St
Calgary, AB T2P 0B2 Ottawa, ON K1P 1C3

Joshua B. Hawkes, Q.C. D. Lynne Watt
Tel.: [phone] Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax [phone]
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the
General of Alberta Intervener, Attorney General of Alberta

MCCARTHY TÉTRAULT LLP BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP
Suite 1300, 777 Dunsmuir Street Suite 1300, 100 Queen Street
Vancouver, BC V7Y 1K2 Ottawa, ON K1P 1J9

Michael A. Feder
Adrienne Smith Nadia Effendi
Tel.: [phone] Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the Intervener, Pivot Legal Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the
Society Intervener, Pivot Legal Society
BARNES SAMMON LLP
400 - 200 Elgin Street
Ottawa, ON K2P 1L5

Bruce F. Simpson
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Counsel for the Intervener, John Howard
Society of Canada

FASKEN MARTINEAU DUMOULIN FASKEN MARTINEAU DuMOULIN LLP
LLP 55 Metcalfe Street, Suite 1300
333 Bay Street, Suite 2400 Ottawa ON, K1P 6L5
Bay Adelaide Centre, Box 20
Toronto, ON M5H 2T6

Jennifer McAleer Yael Wexler
Kimberly Potter Tel.: [phone]
Tel.: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the
Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Intervener, Canadian Civil Liberties
Civil Liberties Association Association

RUBY SHILLER CHAN HASAN SACK GOLDBLATT MITCHELL LLP
11 Prince Arthur Ave. 500 - 30 Metcalfe Street
Toronto, ON M5R 1B2 Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 5L4

Nader R. Hasan Colleen Bauman
Tel.: [phone] Tel..: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the Intervener, British Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the
Columbia Civil Liberties Association Intervener, British Columbia Civil
Liberties Association
HENEIN HUTCHISON LLP BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP
235 King Street East, Third Floor Suite 1300, 100 Queen Street
Toronto, ON M5A 1J9 Ottawa, ON K1P 1J9

Scott C. Hutchison
Danielle Robitaille Nadia Effendi
Tel.: [phone] Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the Intervener, The Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the
Advocates' Society Intervener, The Advocates' Society

PECK AND COMPANY GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON
610 - 744 West Hastings LLP
Vancouver, BC V6C 1A5 2600 - 160 Elgin Street
Ottawa, ON K1P 1C3

Eric V. Gottardi Jeffrey Beedell
Nikos Harris Tel.: [phone]
Tel.: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the Intervener, The Canadian Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the
Bar Association Intervener, The Canadian Bar Association

EDELSON CLIFFORD D'ANGELO
FRIEDMAN LLP
200 Elgin Street, Suite 600
Ottawa, ON K2P 1L5

Solomon Friedman
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the Intervener, Canada's
National Firearms Association
URSEL PHILLIPS FELLOWS SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP
HOPKINSON LLP 340 Gilmour Street, Suite 100
555 Richmond Street West, Suite 1200 Ottawa, ON K2P 0R3
Toronto, ON M5V 3B1

Joanna Birenbaum Marie-France Major
Susan Chapman Tel.: [phone]
Tel.: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the
Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Intervener, Canadian Association for
Association for Community Living Community Living

AFRICAN CANADIAN LEGAL CLINIC BARNES SAMMON LLP
811 - 8 King Street East 400 - 200 Elgin Street
Toronto, ON M5C 1B5 Ottawa, ON K2P 1L5

Anthony Morgan
Virginia A. Nelder Bruce F. Simpson
Tel.: [phone] Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: [email protected]

Counsel for the Intervener, African Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the
Canadian Legal Clinic Intervener, African Canadian Legal Clinic
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

PART I – STATEMENT OF FACTS ..........................................................................................1
A. Overview of the Respondent’s Position ...............................................................................1
B. Statement of Facts ................................................................................................................2
PART II – STATEMENT OF ISSUES ........................................................................................3
PART III – STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT.............................................................................3
A. The Problems with Mandatory Minimum Sentences...........................................................3
(i) Mandatory Minimum Sentences Do Not Deter Crime ............................................4
(ii) Mandatory Minimums Frustrate Sentencing Judges................................................7
(iii)Mandatory Minimums Risk Wrongful Convictions ................................................8
(iv) Mandatory Minimums Risk Undermining Public Confidence in the
Criminal Justice System ...........................................................................................9
B. Section 95(2)(a)(i) Violates Section 12 ...............................................................................9
(i) Overview ..................................................................................................................9
(ii) The Particularized Inquiry .....................................................................................11
(iii)The Reasonably Hypothetical Inquiry ...................................................................11
a) The Ontario Court of Appeal Identified an Appropriate Reasonable
Hypothetical ...............................................................................................11
b) The Ontario Court of Appeal’s Hypothetical is not Unreasonable
or Far-Fetched ............................................................................................13
c) The Ontario Court of Appeal’s Hypothetical Did Not
Mischaracterize the Offence ......................................................................17
d) The Crown Election does not Provide a Safeguard Against s. 95’s
Cruel and Unusual Punishment .................................................................19
e) Parole Eligibility Does Not Provide an Answer to s. 95’s Gross
Disproportionality ......................................................................................23
f) An Alternative Reasonable Hypothetical based on R. v. Smickle ..............23
g) This Court Should not Abandon Reasonable Hypotheticals......................25
C. Section 95(2)(a)(i) Violates Section 7 ...............................................................................27
(i) Overview ................................................................................................................27
(ii) The Two-Year Gap Engages the Liberty Interest ..................................................28
(iii)Section 95’s Two-Year Gap is Arbitrary ...............................................................28
ii

D. Neither Violation is Saved by Section 1 of the Charter ....................................................31
PART IV – COSTS ......................................................................................................................31
PART V – ORDER REQUESTED .............................................................................................31
PART VI – TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................32
PART VII – STATUTORY PROVISIONS ...............................................................................34
PART I – STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Overview of the Respondent’s Position
1. There is perhaps no better illustration of Canada’s recent shift toward American-style
punishment than the proliferation of mandatory minimum sentences in our country. Until
recently, mandatory minimum sentences were a rarity in Canada.1 But today, Canada ranks
second in the world — behind only the United States — in the number of offences it has that
carry mandatory minimum sentences.2
2. This shift has been orchestrated in the face of a body of empirical research that shows
mandatory minimums do not work. They do not deter crime. But mandatory minimums do have
destructive consequences. They frustrate our trial judges and leave them unable to impose just
and proportional sentences in an increasing number of the cases that come before them.
Mandatory minimums also exacerbate Canada’s growing problem with over-incarceration. As
crime rates fall, our prison population perplexingly swells.3 And mandatory minimums create a
powerful incentive for accused people to plead guilty to lesser offences. This increases the risk
that innocent people will forgo their right to a trial and plead guilty to crimes they did not
commit to avoid the shattering blow of a mandatory minimum sentence. Sadly, while the
Americans have learned these hard lessons and are retreating from the use of mandatory
minimums, Canada continues to march down the opposite path.
3. While this Court has held that Parliament’s decision to impose mandatory minimum
sentences is owed deference, that deference is not and cannot be unlimited. Parliament must not
1 R. v. Nur, 2013 ONCA 677 at para. 69 [Judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal] [Appellant’s Record
( “ A . R . ” ) T a b 2 ] . S e e a l s o : N i c ole Crutcher, “Mandatory Minimum Penalties of Imprisonment: An
Historical Analysis” (2011) 44 Crim. L.Q. 279 [Respondent’s Book of Authorities (“R. BoA”) Tab 19];
Julian V. Roberts, “Mandatory Minimum Sentences of Imprisonment: Exploring the Consequences for
the Sentencing Process” (2001) 39 Osgoode Hall L.J. 305 [R. BoA Tab 28].
2 British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, News Release, “Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Costs
Too Much” (8 September 2014) online: https://bccla.org/news/2014/09/mandatory-minimum-sentencing-
costs-too-much/ [R. BoA Tab 16].
3 Cheryl Marie Webster, Anthony N. Doob & Nicole M. Myers, “The Parable of Ms. Baker:
Understanding Pre-trial Detention in Canada” (2009) 21(1) Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 79 [R.
BoA 24].
2
create mandatory minimums that are grossly disproportionate to the crimes they are imposed for.

And Parliament’s mandatory minimums cannot be arbitrary.
4. Section 95(2)(a)(i)’s three-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of restricted
and prohibited firearms that are loaded, or that have readily accessible ammunition, offends both
of these limits and must be struck down.
5. Section 95’s three-year mandatory minimum is grossly disproportionate because the
offence applies to a vast array of conduct. A person with a loaded assault rifle in the trunk of his
car is as guilty of the offence as someone who mistakenly believes he is licensed and has an
unloaded gun stored safely in his house with ammunition. Both offenders are exposed to a
mandatory minimum sentence of three years imprisonment. The Respondent submits that when a
reasonable hypothetical offender is considered, it shows that the three-year minimum is
unconstitutional. A unanimous five-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal carefully applied
this Court’s precedent and reached this conclusion. It was right to do so.
6. Section 95 also violates s. 7 of the Charter because it is arbitrary. It creates a two-year
gap in the sentences that are available to trial judges. If the Crown proceeds summarily, the
maximum available sentence is one-year imprisonment. If the Crown proceeds by indictment, the
crime attracts a three-year mandatory minimum. Section 95 makes it impossible for a judge to
impose a sentence of incarceration that is longer than one year but less than three years. This
two-year gap drives offenders who deserve more than one year but less than three years into the
indictable category. The gap thwarts the flexibility the hybrid nature of s. 95 was designed to
allow. The Parliamentary record discloses no reason for creating the chasm. No other offence in
our Criminal Code creates a gap of any length, let alone one that spans two years. The
Respondent submits that this gap is arbitrary and must be struck down as a violation of s. 7 of the
Charter.
B. Statement of the Facts
7. The Respondent accepts the facts as set out by the Appellants.