To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠our website⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment — Sentencing

(0:00:08) Reasons for Judgment: Martin J. (Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Brown, Rowe, Kasirer and Jamal JJ. concurring)
(0:00:19) I. Introduction – 1
(0:05:07) II. Legislative Background – 6
(0:05:09) A. The Challenged Mandatory Minimum – 6
(0:08:37) B. The Applicable Firearms Regime – 10
(0:12:13) III. Facts and Judicial History – 16
(0:14:16) A. Alberta Court of Queen's Bench – 21
(0:15:58) B. Alberta Court of Appeal – 25
(0:19:01) IV. Issues – 29
(0:19:26) V. Analysis – 30
(0:20:14) A. The Protection Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment Under Section 12 of the Charter – 31
(0:25:28) B. The Framework for Assessing Grossly Disproportionate Sentences – 40
(0:32:21) C. Stage One: Determining a Fit and Proportionate Sentence – 50
(0:33:55) (1) Sentencing an Individual Offender – 52
(0:42:25) (2) Sentencing Reasonably Foreseeable Offenders and the Use of Reasonable Hypotheticals – 67
(1:01:06) D. Stage Two: The Gross Disproportionality Standard – 97
(1:02:20) (1) Section 12’s Protection Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment Applies to Cruel and Unusual Periods of Imprisonment – 99
(1:04:04) (2) The Comparison Is Based on the Sentence, Without Considering Parole – 103
(1:05:59) (3) What It Means for a Sentence to Be Grossly Disproportionate – 106
(1:10:14) (4) Gross Disproportionality Is the Governing Standard – 116
(1:11:45) (5) Whether a Mandatory Minimum Sentence Is Grossly Disproportionate – 119
(1:32:13) (6) Conclusion – 147
(1:33:49) E. Section 244.2(3)(b) Is Grossly Disproportionate – 149
(1:34:45) (1) Mr. Hills Raises a Reasonably Foreseeable Scenario – 151
(1:37:22) (2) A Fit and Proportionate Sentence in a Foreseeable Scenario Would Not Involve Imprisonment – 155
(1:42:20) (3) The Mandatory Minimum Is Grossly Disproportionate – 163
(1:49:38) F. Did the Court of Appeal of Alberta Err in Failing to Consider Mr. Hills’ Gladue Report and his Métis Status in Re-Sentencing Him? – 171
(1:50:49) G. Remedy – 174
(1:51:18) VI. Conclusion – 175
(1:51:53) Dissenting Reasons: Côté J.
(1:51:56) I. Introduction – 176
(1:52:42) II. Legal Framework – 177
(1:58:47) III. Analysis – 185
(1:59:14) A. Interpretation of Section 244.2(1)(a) – 186
(2:00:59) (1) Legislative Intent – 189
(2:03:57) (2) The Elements of Section 244.2(1)(a) – 192
(2:09:28) (3) Conclusion on the Ambit of Section 244.2(1)(a) – 199
(2:10:28) (4) Effect of the Crown’s Concession – 200
(2:12:46) B. Application of the Two‑Stage Nur Framework – 204
(2:12:49) (1) What Is a Fit and Proportionate Sentence for the Section 244.2(1)(a) Offence? – 204
(2:23:09) (2) Is a Four‑Year Sentence Grossly Disproportionate to the Fit and Proportionate Sentence? – 218
(2:27:12) IV. Legislative Amendments – 224
(2:28:34) V. Conclusion – 226