To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit our website to provide feedback.
Constitutional law — Charter ofRights — Fundamental justice — Presumption of innocence
(00:00:15) Summary
(00:00:16) Facts and ProceduralHistory
(00:02:01) Held (Côté, Rowe andJamal JJ. dissenting)
(00:02:13) Per Wagner C.J. andKarakatsanis, Martin, Kasirer, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ.
(00:09:15) Per Côté, Rowe andJamal JJ. (dissenting)
(00:24:02) Reasons forJudgment: Wagner C.J. (Karakatsanis, Martin, Kasirer, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ.concurring)
(00:24:12) I. Introduction – 1
(00:29:35) II. Background andJudicial History – 10
(00:29:38) A. Background – 10
(00:32:49) B. Court of Queen’sBench for Saskatchewan – 14
(00:35:37) C. Court of Appeal forSaskatchewan – 17
(00:37:47) III. Issues – 20
(00:38:14) IV. Analysis – 21
(00:38:16) A. S. 11(d) Should Be Considered – 21
(00:41:41) B. S. 11(d) of the Charter IsInfringed – 27
(00:41:45) (1) Scope of S. 11 – 27
(00:44:41) (2) Legal Status ofShubley – 32
(00:58:12) (3) S. 11 Is Engaged by OffencesPunishable by Disciplinary Segregation or Loss of Earned Remission – 52
(00:58:20) (a) Meaning of“Imprisonment” – 52
(01:01:00) (b) DisciplinarySegregation and Loss of Earned Remission Are Forms of Imprisonment – 57
(01:12:21) (4) S. 68 of the Regulations InfringesS. 11(d) of the Charter – 78
(01:12:54) C. S. 7 of the Charter Is Infringed –80
(01:19:42) D. The InfringementsAre Not Justified Under S. 1 of theCharter – 91
(01:23:05) V. Conclusion – 98
(01:24:09)Dissenting Reasons: Côté J. (Rowe and Jamal JJ. concurring)
(01:24:15) I. Overview – 100
(01:30:12) II. Facts – 110
(01:34:54) III. Judicial History –117
(01:34:57) A. Court of Queen’sBench of Saskatchewan – 117
(01:38:42) B. Court of Appeal forSaskatchewan – 123
(01:41:40) IV. Issues – 128
(01:42:23) V. Analysis – 129
(01:42:25) A. Should John HowardSociety Be Permitted To Raise a New Issue on Appeal? – 129
(01:47:37) B. How Should the CourtApproach This Case? – 138
(01:50:17) C. Does S. 11 of the Charter Apply toSaskatchewan’s Inmate Disciplinary Proceedings? – 142
(01:50:23) (1) Introduction – 142
(01:53:20) (2) The WigglesworthTest – 146
(01:54:39) (a) The Criminal inNature Prong of the Test – 148
(01:58:15) (b) The True PenalConsequences Prong of the Test – 153
(02:01:50) (c) Application of theTest in Wigglesworth – 158
(02:02:30) (3) Application ofWigglesworth in Shubley – 159
(02:04:32) (4) Is Shubley StillGood Law? – 161
(02:05:36) (a) GoverningPrinciples for Overturning a Precedent – 163
(02:07:40) (b) Reasons Advanced ToOverturn Shubley – 167
(02:09:16) (c) Shubley RemainsGood Law – 171
(02:28:58) D. Does S. 68 of the Regulations Infringe S. 11(d) of the Charter? – 202
(02:29:04) (1) Application of theWigglesworth Test in This Case – 202
(02:29:38) (a) The Criminal inNature Prong of the Test – 204
(02:37:39) (b) The True PenalConsequence Prong of the Test – 219
(02:47:19) (2) Conclusion: NeitherProng of the Wigglesworth Test Is Met – 240
(02:49:46) E. Does S. 68 of the Regulations Violate S. 7 of the Charter? – 241
(02:50:19) (1) Step One: TheDeprivation of Liberty – 245
(02:51:46) (2) Step Two: Identifythe Principle of Fundamental Justice – 246
(02:52:23) (3) Step Three: Was theDeprivation in Accordance With the Principles of Fundamental Justice? – 249
(02:54:07) (a) The PrinciplesGoverning Pearson – 256
(03:10:57) (4) Inmate DisciplinaryRecords Should Only Be Used in Future Sentencing Hearings if Proven Beyond aReasonable Doubt – 276
(03:15:56) (5) The ProceduralGuarantees of the Correctional Services Act Are Sufficient To Ensure a FairProcess – 279
(03:16:57) (6) Conclusion on S. 7 – 291
(03:24:16) F. Are Any PossibleInfringements of S. 7 or S. 11(d) of the Charter JustifiedUnder S. 1? – 292
(03:25:50) VI. Conclusion – 293
