•  
  •  
 
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Albashir on constitutional remedies under section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 and section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Albashir marks a step in the evolution of constitutional remedies by adding to the list of factors that can justify a court declaring a law invalid on a prospective-only basis. It recognizes a new exception to the presumption of retroactivity that applies when a court declares a law to be invalid. Where a court suspends its declaration of invalidity, once the suspension expires, the effect of the declaration may be prospective only, if that is necessary to give effect to the purpose of the suspension. Prospectivity is justified where retroactivity would undermine the very purpose of the suspension. Albashir is also significant for confirming that a remedy under section 24(1) of the Charter is available to offset any negative consequences that prospective declarations might have. Any accused whose conduct had been unconstitutionally criminalized under the prospectively invalidated law, would have recourse to an individual section 24(1) remedy such as a stay of proceedings. The paper also examines the guidance given by the Supreme Court that courts should be more explicit about the temporal application of their remedial declarations. Albashir sets a new standard for remedial clarity, urging courts not only to explain their reasons for suspending declarations of invalidity, but also to explicitly address whether a declaration is to operate retroactively or purely prospectively once the suspension expires. The Court further provides suggestions on temporal clarity to lawmakers in crafting remedial legislation, through retroactive criminal legislation and transition provisions, although these seem unlikely to lead to the desired certainty. An annex to the paper including a “roadmap” chart, distills the relevant remedial principles to aid litigants in future cases involving declarations of constitutional invalidity.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

References

1 Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11.

2 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [hereinafter "Charter"].

3 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Albashir"].

4 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 52 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1002/piuz.202170115

5 Admittedly, we were counsel for the Attorney General of Canada as intervener in the Albashir appeal and the majority adopted the Attorney General of Canada's proposed analytical approach to the temporal application of suspended declarations. See: R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 23, 52 (S.C.C.). For a different perspective on the majority's decision, see: Danielle Pinard, "La Temporalité des Jugements D'inconstitutionnalité des Lois au Canada: Les Mesures D'atténuation Prises à L'égard de Leur Rétroactivité et de Leur Caractère Immédiatement Exécutoire", (2022) 42 Nat'l J. Const. L. 157.

6 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at paras. 83, 100, 132-133, 190, 226-227 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "G"]; R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 1, 43, 46 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1sr6kmm.46

7 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 62-65 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12614-021-0228-z

8 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 8 (S.C.C.).

9 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 67 (S.C.C.).

10 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 36, 55, 86, 100 (S.C.C.).

11 Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] S.C.J. No. 72, 2013 SCC 72 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Bedford"].

12 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

13 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 (S.C.C.).

14 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 85 (S.C.C.). It is said to be the first time the Supreme Court has employed visual aids in a judgment: Omar Ha-Redeye, "Use of Graphics in SCC Decisions", online: https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/ 86424.

15 Special thanks to our Justice colleague Jennifer Clarke for taking our very basic idea and turning it into a valuable illustrative visual aid.

16 See, for example, Beverley McLachlin, "Rights and Remedies: Remarks" in Robert Sharpe & Kent Roach, eds., Taking Remedies Seriously (Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, 2010) 21 at 23, cited in Danielle Pinard, "La Temporalité des Jugements D'inconstitutionnalité des Lois au Canada: Les Mesures D'atténuation Prises à L'égard de Leur Rétroactivité et de Leur Caractère Immédiatement Exécutoire", (2022) 42 Nat'l J. Const. L. 157 at 246, fns 391-392; Kent Roach, "Principled versus Rule or Text-Based Discretion in Charter Remedies: Conseil Scolaire, Ontario (Attorney General) v G and Albashir", 42 Nat'l J. Const. L. 123 at 125.

17 Notably, in his recent article, Kent Roach refers to R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 (S.C.C.), as one of the three most important remedial decisions rendered by the Supreme Court since Ward in 2010; "Principled versus Rule or Text-Based Discretion in Charter Remedies: Conseil Scolaire, Ontario (Attorney General) G and Albashir", 42 Nat'l J. Const. L. 123 at 153. See also: Danielle Pinard, "La Temporalité des Jugements D'inconstitutionnalité des Lois au Canada: Les Mesures D'atténuation Prises à L'égard de Leur Rétroactivité et de Leur Caractère Immédiatement Exécutoire", (2022) 42 Nat'l J. Const. L. 157.

18 R. v. Sullivan, [2022] S.C.J. No. 19, 2022 SCC 19 (S.C.C.); R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.).

19 Of the judges who sat on Albashir, only Chief Justice (then Justice) Wagner and Abella, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ. were on the Court at the time of the Bedford decision.

20 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 212(i)(j).

21 R. v. Bedford, [2013] S.C.J. No. 72, 2013 SCC 72 at para. 164 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1344-0241(13)00145-3

22 R. v. Bedford, [2013] S.C.J. No. 72, 2013 SCC 72 at para. 167 (S.C.C.).

23 An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2014, c. 25.

24 Replaced by "sexual services for consideration." Note: Throughout this article, we use the term "prostitution" when referring to the Bedford decision and then "sex work" when referring to Albashir as those are the terms used by the Court. We recognize that neither of these terms are universally accepted.

25 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 286.2.

26 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 212(1)(j).

27 R. v. Albashir, 2018 BCSC 736 at para. 16 (B.C.S.C.) (oral reasons for judgment).

28 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 13 (S.C.C.) R. v. Albashir, [2020] B.C.J. No. 909, 2020 BCCA 160 at para. 6 (B.C.C.A.).

29 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 56 (S.C.C.).

30 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 14 (S.C.C.).

31 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 16 (S.C.C.).

32 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 17. See also: R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 17 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.36576/summa.144492

33 R. v. Albashir, [2020] B.C.J. No. 909, 2020 BCCA 160 at para. 92 (B.C.C.A.).

34 R. v. Albashir, [2020] B.C.J. No. 909, 2020 BCCA 160 at para. 90 (B.C.C.A.). See also paras. 77-82.

35 R. v. Albashir, [2020] B.C.J. No. 909, 2020 BCCA 160 at para. 91 (B.C.C.A.).

36 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 1 (S.C.C.).

37 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 57 (S.C.C.). See also: paras. 54-56.

38 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 92 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1615/InterJFluidMechRes.v48.i6.60

39 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 75 (S.C.C.).

40 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 90-92 (S.C.C.).

41 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 26 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00735-021-1307-8

42 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 27, 30, 34, 42 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.2478/foecol-2021-0005 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at paras. 88-89 (S.C.C.) R. v. Sullivan, [2022] S.C.J. No. 19, 2022 SCC 19 at paras. 60-61 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11298-022-2482-z R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23, 2022 SCC 23 at para. 123 (S.C.C.).

43 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at para. 89 (S.C.C.). See also: R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 30 (S.C.C.) R. v. Sullivan, [2022] S.C.J. No. 19, 2022 SCC 19 at para. 61 (S.C.C.).

44 R. v. Sullivan, [2022] S.C.J. No. 19, 2022 SCC 19 at para. 60 (S.C.C.) [emphasis added]. While beyond the scope of this article, a unanimous Supreme Court concluded that in issuing a s. 52(1) declaration of invalidity, a court is "exercising an ordinary judicial power to determine a question of law." The effect of such a declaration is not to "remove laws from statute books" as that misconstrues the power of judges: para. 45. For a detailed discussion of the issues at play see: Alexandre Marcotte, "A Question of Law" (Formal) Declarations of Invalidity and the Doctrine of Stare Decisis", 42 Nat'l J. Const. L. 1.

45 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 34 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-7058/34/07/44

46 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 48, 76, 120 (S.C.C.). Both the majority and the minority judges rejected the pre-emptive theory relied upon by the BC Crown and adopted by the BC Court of Appeal.

47 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 48 (S.C.C.). See also R. v. Albashir, [2020] B.C.J. No. 909, 2020 BCCA 160 at para. 90 (B.C.C.A.).

48 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 48 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.1080/14432471.2021.1957449 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at paras. 131-132 (S.C.C.). For a contrary view see: Danielle Pinard, "La Temporalité des Jugements D'inconstitutionnalité des Lois au Canada: Les Mesures D'atténuation Prises à L'égard de Leur Rétroactivité et de Leur Caractère Immédiatement Exécutoire", (2022) 42 Nat'l J. Const. L. 157 at 244, fn 383b.

49 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 8, 31, 34, 39, 41 (S.C.C.). See also: Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop, [2007] S.C.J. No. 10, 2007 SCC 10 at paras. 82-83 (S.C.C.) R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23, 2022 SCC 23 at para. 135 (S.C.C.).

50 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 8, 34, 44 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1097/01.JAA.0000743008.36429.8b

51 Blackstonian theory posits that "judges never make law, but merely discover it": Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop, [2007] S.C.J. No. 10, 2007 SCC 10 at para. 79 (S.C.C.). See also: R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 39 (S.C.C.) Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at para. 87 (S.C.C.).

52 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 40 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.51202/0933-3754-2021-3-048-1

53 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 (S.C.C.). See also: Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at para. 121 (S.C.C.) R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23, 2022 SCC 23 at para. 136 (S.C.C.) Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop, [2007] S.C.J. No. 10, 2007 SCC 10 at para. 101 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Hislop"].

54 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 40 (S.C.C.). See also: Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at paras. 87-89 (S.C.C.).

55 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 40 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.51202/0933-3754-2021-3-048-1

56 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 43, 46, 52 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1sr6kmm.46

57 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 8, 43, 46, 52 (S.C.C.). Since this article was written, the Supreme Court applied this exception in R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 at para. 140 (S.C.C.) where it determined that "a retroactive declaration would undermine the purpose of the suspension i.e.: ensuring high-risk offenders are registered on SOIRA for public safety".

58 Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop, [2007] S.C.J. No. 10, 2007 SCC 10 at para. 86 (S.C.C.).

59 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 45 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.45-4-48 Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop, [2007] S.C.J. No. 10, 2007 SCC 10 at para. 96 (S.C.C.).

60 Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop, [2007] S.C.J. No. 10, 2007 SCC 10 at paras. 99, 107 (S.C.C.) R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 45 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.45-4-48

61 Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop, [2007] S.C.J. No. 10, 2007 SCC 10 at paras. 97, 99, 107 (S.C.C.).

62 Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop, [2007] S.C.J. No. 10, 2007 SCC 10 at paras. 100-108 (S.C.C.). See also: R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 45 (S.C.C.).

63 Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop, [2007] S.C.J. No. 10, 2007 SCC 10 at para. 100 (S.C.C.). See also R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 45 (S.C.C.).

64 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 8 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.23854/07198698.202181Neira48

65 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at paras. 133, 139 (S.C.C.) R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 46 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NPR.0000798248.96720.0a

66 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 43 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1sr6kmm.46

67 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 46, 52 (S.C.C.). See also: R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 at para. 140 (S.C.C.).

68 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 49 (S.C.C.).

69 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 8, 34, 44 (S.C.C.).

70 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 54-57 (S.C.C.).

71 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 55 (S.C.C.).

72 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 60-61 (S.C.C.). See also: R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] S.C.J. No. 17, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295 at 313 (S.C.C.).

73 Although on this point see R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23, 2022 SCC 23 at para. 137 (S.C.C.) wherein the Court stated that "res judicata cannot prevent them from bringing an application to stop this continuing infringement of s. 12 of the Charter."

74 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 61 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.26824/lalr.238

75 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 67 (S.C.C.). See also: R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 at paras. 140-141 (S.C.C.).

76 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 101 (S.C.C.). See also para. 104 where the minority refers to the "brief window of the suspension" within which accused persons can be convicted.

77 See, for example, R. v. Al-Qaysi, [2016] B.C.J. No. 1072, 2016 BCSC 937 at para. 19 (B.C.S.C.).

78 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 105 (S.C.C.).

79 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 55-57, 69 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1353/col.2021.0004

80 See, for example, R. v. D. (D.), [2000] S.C.J. No. 44, 2000 SCC 43 at para. 65 (S.C.C.). See also Lori C Haskell & Melanie Randall, The Impact of Trauma on Adult Sexual Assault Victims, Report submitted to Justice Canada, (2019) at 24, 29.

81 See, for example, Reporting, Investigating and Prosecuting Sexual Assaults Committed Against Adults Challenges and Promising Practices in Enhancing Access to Justice for Victims, Report of the Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials Working Group on Access to Justice for Adult Victims of Sexual Assault, 2018, at sections 3.1 and 4.2.

82 R. v. Ford, 1993 CarswellOnt 1067 at para. 8 (Ont. C.A.); Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2019, c. 25, s. 315 (replacing s. 786(2) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46). See also: Canada, Senate, Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Evidence No. 61, 1st Sess., 42nd Parl., May 8, 2019 (Marion Buller, Chief Commissioner, National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls) (re limitation extension).

83 R. v. B. (W.), [2000] O.J. No. 2184, 49 O.R. (3d) 321 at paras. 145-146 (Ont. C.A.).

84 R. v. Downey, [1992] S.C.J. No. 48, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 10 at 38-39 (S.C.C.); Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 286.2(3).

85 R. v. Downey, [1992] S.C.J. No. 48, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 10 at 33 (S.C.C.); R. v. Ibeagha, [2019] Q.J. No. 7999, 2019 QCCA 1534 at paras. 1-7 (Que. C.A.). See also: Canada, Senate, Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Evidence, No. 61, 1st Sess., 42nd Parl., May 8, 2019 (Marion Buller, Chief Commissioner and Qajaq Robinson, Commissioner, National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls); Canada, Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, vol. 1a (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2019) at 565, 658, 669.

86 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 66-67 (S.C.C.) Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at paras. 142, 150 (S.C.C.).

87 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at para. 150 (S.C.C.). See also R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 66-67 (S.C.C.).

88 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 63-66 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0015.5131

89 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 60 (S.C.C.).

90 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 67 (S.C.C.) Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at paras. 149-152 (S.C.C.).

91 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 69 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1353/col.2021.0004

92 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 73 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.51202/0947-7527-2021-27-048

93 See also: R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 at para. 141 (S.C.C.).

94 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 34 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-7058/34/07/44

95 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 53, 86 (S.C.C.). The minority underscored the importance of being explicit and headed an entire section "Guidance to Courts" - paras. 86-92.

96 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 49 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1215/00265667-8851436

97 R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23, 2022 SCC 23 at paras. 138, 143 (S.C.C.). At para. 122 in ordering an immediate declaration, the Court notes that no alternative remedy was proposed by the appellants.

98 R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 at paras. 140, 142 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.3917/enje.038.0140

99 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at paras. 93, 126 (S.C.C.).

100 See, for example, R. v. Kloubakov, [2022] A.J. No. 29, 2022 ABQB 21 at para. 51 (Alta. Q.B.).

101 R. v. Bedford, [2013] S.C.J. No. 72, 2013 SCC 72 at para. 165 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000110

102 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 58 (S.C.C.) [emphasis added]. https://doi.org/10.5771/2747-6073-2021-1-48

103 Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2016] S.C.J. No. 4, 2016 SCC 4 (S.C.C.).

104 Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2016] S.C.J. No. 4, 2016 SCC 4 at para. 6 (S.C.C.).

105 Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2016] S.C.J. No. 4, 2016 SCC 4 at para. 7 (S.C.C.) [emphasis added].

106 In R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 (S.C.C.), the majority characterized the Carter II remedy in the following terms: "provided guidelines for constitutional exemptions for physician-assisted death" (para. 58) and "a broad interim remedy that granted personal relief to people whose rights were jeopardized by the extended suspension" (para. 66).

107 See Jeanette Ettel, "Remedial Postscripts - Reflections on Carter II, Suspensions, Extensions and Exemptions" The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode's Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 81 (2019) at 263 where an exemption from suspensions is described as being "granted in conjunction with a suspended declaration of invalidity."

108 See, however, Re S. (H.), [2016] A.J. No. 197, 2016 ABQB 121 at para. 48 (Alta. Q.B.), where Martin J. (as a trial judge) did not interpret the task of superior courts as granting a personal exemption under s. 24(1): "The majority has thus already granted the remedy of a constitutional exemption to all those who meet its criteria. The role given to authorizing courts is to hear individual applications and determine whether a particular claimant is inside or outside the group which has already been granted the constitutional exemption. The judicial task of the authorizing court is therefore limited to determining whether a particular claimant satisfies the terms of para. 127 of Carter 2015."

109 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at paras. 140-152 (S.C.C.).

110 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at para. 134 (S.C.C.).

111 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 36, 100 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BACK.0000742276.09397.d5

112 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 (S.C.C.).

113 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 87 (S.C.C.).

114 R. v. Chouhan, [2020] S.C.J. No. 101, 2021 SCC 26 at para. 90 (S.C.C.).

115 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 36 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BACK.0000742276.09397.d5 S. Choudhry & K. Roach, "Putting the Past Behind Us? Prospective Judicial and Legislative Constitutional Remedies" (2003), 21 S.C.L.R. (2d) 205.

116 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 35, 94 (S.C.C.). See also Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 6th ed. (Markham, ON: LexisNexis Canada, 2014) at para. 25.6.

117 Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 6th ed. (Markham, ON: LexisNexis Canada, 2014) at para. 25.8.

118 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 34, 96 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1215/00265667-8851436

119 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 35 (S.C.C.).

120 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 98 (S.C.C.).

121 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 35 (S.C.C.).

122 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 99, 122 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.5798/dicletip.1005196

123 R. v. J. (K.R.), [2016] S.C.J. No. 31, 2016 SCC 31 at para. 23 (S.C.C.).

124 See, for example, summary of passage of successor legislation in R. v. S. (N.), [2022] O.J. No. 934, 2022 ONCA 160 at paras. 19-30, 47-63 (Ont. C.A.).

125 See, for example, R. v. S. (N.), [2022] O.J. No. 934, 2022 ONCA 160 (Ont. C.A.) (reversing a lower court declaration of invalidity and holding that post-Bedford Criminal Code successor provisions do not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11) R. v. Klubakov, [2022] A.J. No. 29, 2022 ABQB 21 at paras. 48-51, 62-63 (Alta. Q.B.) (suspending a declaration of invalidity on the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 286.2 "material benefit from sexual services" offence for 30 days and granting a s. 24(1) stay of proceedings for the accused). The constitutionality of all the offences enacted by former Bill C-36 is currently before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform v. AGC, Ontario Superior Court of Justice file number CV-21-00659594-0000.

126 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 47 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1353/plo.2021.0096

127 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 47 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1353/plo.2021.0096

128 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 85 (S.C.C.).

129 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 31 (S.C.C.). See also Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at paras. 120-121 (S.C.C.).

130 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at para. 132 (S.C.C.). See also para. 121 and R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 43 (S.C.C.).

131 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 1, 31, 43 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.3917/sigila.048.0031 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at paras. 83, 100, 132-133, 190, 226-227 (S.C.C.).

132 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at paras. 117, 126, 133, 139 (S.C.C.) R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 46 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NPR.0000798248.96720.0a R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 at para. 139 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.3917/enje.038.0139

133 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at para. 126 (S.C.C.) Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop, [2007] S.C.J. No. 10, 2007 SCC 10 at para. 100 (S.C.C.).

134 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at paras. 126, 129-130, 174-176 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.3828/indexer.2020.13

135 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at para. 131 (S.C.C.).

136 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at para. 133 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1093/gerhis/ghz056

137 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 8, 43, 46, 52, 66-67 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NUMA.0000724904.35313.91 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at paras. 142, 146, 150 (S.C.C.).

138 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at para. 135 (S.C.C.).

139 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 (S.C.C.).

140 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at para. 139 (S.C.C.). See also paras. 132, 135 and R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 31 (S.C.C.).

141 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 2 (S.C.C.). See also R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23, 2022 SCC 23 at para. 135 (S.C.C.).

142 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 34, 39, 41-44 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.3917/infle.048.0041 R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 at para. 140 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.3917/enje.038.0140

143 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 44 (S.C.C.).

144 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 45, 54 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.45-4-48 Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop, [2007] S.C.J. No. 10, 2007 SCC 10 at para. 99 (S.C.C.).

145 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 45 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.45-4-48 Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop, [2007] S.C.J. No. 10, 2007 SCC 10 at para. 99 (S.C.C.).

146 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 45 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.45-4-48 Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop, [2007] S.C.J. No. 10, 2007 SCC 10 at para. 100 (S.C.C.).

147 Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop, [2007] S.C.J. No. 10, 2007 SCC 10 at paras. 100-108 (S.C.C.) R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 45 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.45-4-48

148 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 43, 46, 52 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1sr6kmm.46 R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 at para. 140 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.3917/enje.038.0140

149 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 60-65 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12614-021-0228-z Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at para. 142 (S.C.C.).

150 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at para. 150 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.1093/mtp/miaa015 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at paras. 66-67 (S.C.C.).

151 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at para. 151 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.3917/maorg.038.0151

152 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at paras. 149-152 (S.C.C.) R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 at para. 141 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078422000232

153 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 69 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.1353/col.2021.0004 R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 at para. 140 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.3917/enje.038.0140

154 R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 58 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.5771/2747-6073-2021-1-48

155 Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2016] S.C.J. No. 4, 2016 SCC 4 at para. 6 (S.C.C.) R. v. Albashir, [2021] S.C.J. No. 48, 2021 SCC 48 at para. 58 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.1109/MSPEC.2021.9340124 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at para. 134 (S.C.C.).

156 Ontario (Attorney General) v. G., [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at para. 134 (S.C.C.).

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS