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

Criminal law — Appeals — Charge to jury
Criminal law — Participation in activities of criminal organization — Elements of offence

(0:00:09) Facts
(0:01:27) Disposition
(0:01:38) Per Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and O'Bonsawin JJ.
(0:07:39) Per Côté J. (dissenting)

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

Criminal law — Appeals — Charge to jury
Criminal law — Participation in activities of criminal organization — Elements of offence

(0:00:09) Reasons for Judgment: Rowe J. (Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ. concurring)
(0:00:18) Preamble
(0:04:28) I. Trial – 7
(0:13:22) II. Court of Appeal for Ontario, 2021 ONCA 82, 399 C.C.C. (3d) 397 – 22
(0:17:44) III. Issue – 27
(0:17:58) IV. Analysis – 28
(0:19:19) A. Legal Framework for Appellate Review of Jury Instructions – 30
(0:19:23) (1) The Role of Appellate Courts in Reviewing Jury Instructions – 30
(0:22:36) (2) A Functional Approach to Appellate Review of Jury Instructions – 34
(0:25:26) (a) Whether the Jury Was Accurately Instructed – 38
(0:27:59) (b) Whether the Jury Was Sufficiently Instructed – 44
(0:28:54) (i) Whether an Instruction Was Required – 47
(0:30:30) (ii) Whether the Instruction Was Given With Sufficient Detail – 50
(0:34:00) (c) Consideration of the Charge in Light of the Circumstances of the Trial – 57
(0:35:36) (i) Evidence – 60
(0:37:19) (ii) Closing Arguments of Counsel – 63
(0:39:26) (iii) Silence of Counsel – 66
(0:43:22) (iv) Sentencing Submissions and Reasons – 71
(0:43:44) (3) Summary – 72
(0:45:06) B. Definition of a Criminal Organization – 73
(0:46:22) (1) Distinguishing Qualities of a Criminal Organization – 76
(0:51:04) (2) Improper Reasoning – 84
(0:53:41) C. Application to the Circumstances of This Case – 87
(0:59:46) V. Conclusion – 97

(0:59:58) Dissenting Reasons: Côté J.
(1:00:03) I. Introduction – 98
(1:01:29) II. Legal Principles – 101
(1:01:53) A. Functional Approach to Appellate Review of Jury Instructions – 102
(1:08:44) B. Definition of a Criminal Organization – 114
(1:14:41) III. Application – 123
(1:31:31) IV. Disposition – 150

Mark Mancini's Sunday Evening Administrative Review is available on Substack.

Please visit our website to provide feedback on this recording and others.

Tribunal participation, Chinook, and more.

Mark Mancini's Sunday Evening Administrative Review is available on Substack.

Please visit our website to provide feedback on this recording and others.

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

Criminal law — Sentencing — Mandatory minimums

(0:00:09) Facts
(0:01:25) Disposition
(0:01:28) Reasons for Judgment: Kasirer J. (Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Côté, Rowe, Martin, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ. concurring)

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

Criminal law — Sentencing — Mandatory minimums

(0:00:14) I. Overview – 1
(0:09:04) II. Facts – 14
(0:10:57) III. Judicial History – 19
(0:11:00) A. New Brunswick Provincial Court (McCarroll Prov. Ct. J) – 19
(0:12:33) B. New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench – 21
(0:13:50) C. New Brunswick Court of Appeal – 23
(0:18:12) IV. Issue – 29
(0:18:33) V. Analysis – 30
(0:18:35) A. Key Statutory Provisions – 30
(0:22:37) B. Grounds of Appeal – 34
(0:26:04) C. Analytical Framework: Coexistence of the Common Law and Legislation in Matters of Sentencing – 39
(0:30:52) (1) The Common Law Allows Credit To Be Granted for a Pre‑sentence Driving Prohibition – 46
(0:35:27) (2) Section 259(1)(a) Cr. C. Does Not Limit the Scope of the Common Law Rule That Allows Credit To Be Granted for a Pre‑sentence Driving Prohibition – 52
(0:36:23) (a) Distinction Between the Concepts of Punishment and Sentence – 54
(0:44:42) (b) Section 259(1)(a) Provides for a Minimum Punishment, Not a Minimum Sentence – 63
(0:52:46) (c) Section 259(1)(a) Does Not Limit the Common Law Rule That Allows Credit To Be Granted for a Pre‑Sentence Driving Prohibition – 74
(0:54:39) D. Court of Appeal’s Stay of Execution of the Sentence – 77
(0:55:53) VI. Disposition – 78

Prayer in private schools, reasons, delay in administrative proceedings, and more.

Mark Mancini's Sunday Evening Administrative Review is available on Substack.

Please visit our website to provide feedback on this recording and others.

Mark Mancini's Sunday Evening Administrative Review is available on Substack.

Please visit our website to provide feedback on this recording and others.

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

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Right to life, liberty and security of person
Immigration — Refugee protection — Ineligibility

(0:00:12) Facts
(0:04:43) Disposition
(0:04:47) Reasons for Judgment: Kasirer J. (Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Côté, Rowe, Martin, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ. concurring)

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

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Right to life, liberty and security of person
Immigration — Refugee protection — Ineligibility

(00:00:12) Reasons for Judgment: Kasirer J. (Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Côté, Rowe, Martin, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ. concurring)
(0:00:16) I. Overview – 1
(0:11:44) II. The Parties – 14
(0:17:08) III. Proceedings Below – 20
(0:17:10) A. Federal Court, 2020 FC 770, [2021] 1 F.C.R. 209 (McDonald J.) – 20
(0:19:49) B. Federal Court of Appeal, 2021 FCA 72, [2021] 3 F.C.R. 294 (Noël C.J. and Stratas and Laskin JJ.A.) – 26
(0:22:17) IV. Issues – 30
(0:22:39) V. Statutory and Regulatory Scheme and Context – 31
(0:23:25) A. Safe Third Country Agreement – 32
(0:26:03) B. Domestic Implementation of the Safe Third Country Agreement – 37
(0:26:53) (1) Designation and Review Mechanisms – 38
(0:29:07) (2) Limits to the General Ineligibility Rule – 41
(0:30:42) (3) Exemptions From the Application of the General Ineligibility Rule – 43
(0:33:35) VI. Administrative Law Issues – 49
(0:37:30) VII. The Section 7 Claim – 56
(0:38:57) A. Properly Constituting a Section 7 Challenge – 59
(0:40:52) (1) The Relevance of Preventative and Curative Measures to the Section 7 Challenge – 62
(0:52:18) (2) The Relevance of Associated Administrative Conduct to the Section 7 Challenge – 79
(0:55:20) B. Engagement of Section 7 Interests – 83
(0:56:52) (1) Effects Implicating Section 7 Interests – 85
(0:57:29) (a) Detention in the United States – 86
(1:00:08) (b) Conditions While Detained in the United States – 90
(1:03:25) (c) Risks of Refoulement From the United States – 95
(1:05:19) (i) Refoulement Because of Barriers Caused by Detention Conditions – 97
(1:09:34) (ii) Refoulement Due to American Asylum Policies – 103
(1:12:58) (d) Conclusion as to the Effects Implicating Section 7 Interests – 108
(1:13:51) (2) Causal Link to Canadian State Action – 109
(1:15:40) (a) Necessary Precondition – 112
(1:16:24) (b) Foreseeable Consequence – 113
(1:19:56) C. Principles of Fundamental Justice Analysis – 118
(1:20:01) (1) The Applicable Principles – 118
(1:25:37) (2) The Scheme Is Not Overbroad or Grossly Disproportionate – 126
(1:26:41) (a) Legislative Purpose – 128
(1:36:23) (b) Risks of Detention and Medical Isolation – 140
(1:42:08) (c) Risks of Refoulement Due to American Asylum Policies – 148
(1:56:31) D. Section 1 – 165
(2:00:40) VIII. The Section 15 Claim – 172
(2:02:18) A. The Parties’ Positions on the Section 15 Challenge – 172
(2:07:32) B. The Section 15 Challenge Should Be Remitted to the Federal Court – 175
(2:08:34) IX. Conclusion – 183