The Constitution and Charter in 2022: The Court, the Chief Justice, and Justice Brown

Authors

Jamie Cameron, Osgoode Hall Law School of York University

Abstract

Osgoode Hall’s 26th Annual Constitutional Cases Conference — the 2022 Year in Review — was held on April 14, 2023. This paper is drawn from the Opening Address, which provides an overview of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence and is a longstanding feature of the conference. As it explains, the Court’s 13 decisions in 2022 focused almost exclusively on the Charter’s legal rights and remedies, though R. v. Sharma considered and dismissed a claim under section 15, and the Court rendered one decision on public interest standing. The paper provides a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the 2022 jurisprudence, adding commentary on two points of particular interest. The first concerns the Court’s invalidation of significant Criminal Code provisions on consecutive life sentences for murder, statutory limits on the defence of intoxication, and lifetime registration on the federal sex offenders’ registry. Second are the dynamics of decision-making in 2022 and the rise of unanimity on the Wagner Court, including in key decisions invalidating Criminal Code provisions. Finally, the overview notes that, due to unexpected developments early in 2023, 2022 would be Justice Russell Brown’s final year on the Supreme Court, and comments briefly on the justice’s 2022 contributions and the significance of his departure from the Court.

Citation Information

Cameron, Jamie. "The Constitution and Charter in 2022: The Court, the Chief Justice, and Justice Brown." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 115. (2024).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1443
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol115/iss1/1

Creative Commons License

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

References

1 Supreme Court of Canada, 2021 Year in Review (2022) (explaining the elements of the emblem, including Canada's legal traditions, the Court's nine members, the Royal Crown, laurels, and the Court's motto), online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/review-revue/2021/indexeng.html.

2 Supreme Court of Canada, 2022 Year in Review (2023) (documenting the myriad ways the Supreme Court serves the public, down to the details of how many telephone inquiries were received and answered), online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/review-revue/2022/yr-ra2022-eng.pdf.

3 On March 7, 2023, the CJC released a statement, "Canadian Judicial Council reviews a matter involving the Honourable Russell Brown", online: https://cjc-ccm.ca/en/news/canadianjudicial-council-reviews-matter-involving-honourable-russell-brown?. See also Ian Mulgrew, "High court justice Russell Brown under investigation after altercation at Arizona resort", The Vancouver Sun, March 9, 2023, online: https://vancouversun.com/news/high-court-justiceunder-investigation-after-altercation-arizona-resort .

4 On March 21 and 22, 2023, the Court heard argument on the constitutionality of the federal government's Impact Assessment Act without Brown J. The Court heard the appeal as a panel of seven, and to avoid the potential for an even split (4-4), O'Bonsawin J. did not participate in the hearing. See A. Hutchinson, "What a Justice's leave of absence reveals about politics and the Supreme Court", Globe & Mail, March 20, 2023, online: https:// www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-what-a-justices-leave-of-absence-reveals-aboutpolitics-and-the/.

5 Canadian Judicial Council, "Canadian Judicial Council establishes a Review Panel in the matter involving the Honourable Russell Brown", March 30, 2023, online: https://cjc-ccm.ca/en/news/cjc-establishes-review-panel-matter-involving-hon-russell-brown. Under the CJC By-laws, a Review Panel determines whether the matter is serious enough to warrant a judge's removal and whether an Inquiry Committee should be established.

6 On June 12, 2023, the CJC announced that further proceedings on the complaint were ended by Brown J.'s retirement: see Canadian Judicial Council, "Canadian Judicial Council provides an update in the matter involving Justice Russell Brown", online: https://cjc-ccm.ca/en/news/canadian-judicial-council-provides-update-matter-regarding-justice-russellbrown. Justice Brown provided a brief statement and also spoke through a statement by his counsel: see "Statement by the Honourable Russell Brown", online: https://stockwoods.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/20230612_Statement-by-The-Honourable-Russell-Brown.pdf; "Statement of Counsel for Justice Brown", online: https://stockwoods.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/20230612_Statement-of-Counsel.pdf.

7 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"].

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

9 R. v. Sharma, [2022] S.C.J. No. 39, 2022 SCC 39 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-99907-6.00009-8

10 The legal rights decisions are R. v. Stairs, [2022] S.C.J. No. 11, 2022 SCC 11 (S.C.C.); R. v. Tim, [2022] S.C.J. No. 12, 2022 SCC 12 (S.C.C.); R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.); R. v. F. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 17, 2022 SCC 17 (S.C.C.); R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.1215/00265667-9563653 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.); R. v. J. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 28, 2022 SCC 28 (S.C.C.) R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.); R. v. Tessier, [2022] S.C.J. No. 35, 2022 SCC 35 (S.C.C.); R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.) R. v. Sharma, [2022] S.C.J. No. 39, 2022 SCC 39 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-99907-6.00009-8 (S.C.C.); R. v. Beaver, [2022] S.C.J. No. 54, 2022 SCC 54 (S.C.C.). See also British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Council of Canadians with Disabilities, [2022] S.C.J. No. 27, 2022 SCC 27 (S.C.C.) (public interest standing); and Murray-Hall v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2023] S.C.J. No. 10, 2023 SCC 10 (S.C.C.) (upholding Quebec legislation, by 8-0 vote, that prohibited the cultivation and possession of cannabis in dwellings, under the division of powers).

11 The Court's five s. 7 decisions are R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.); R. v. Sullivan, [2022] S.C.J. No. 19, 2022 SCC 19 (S.C.C.); R. v. J. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 28, 2022 SCC 28 (S.C.C.) R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 https://doi.org/10.1215/00265667-9993013 (S.C.C.); and R. v. Sharma, [2022] S.C.J. No. 39, 2022 SCC 39 (S.C.C.). The nine legal rights decisions are R. v. Stairs, [2022] S.C.J. No. 11, 2022 SCC 11 (S.C.C.) (s. 8); R. v. Tim, [2022] S.C.J. No. 12, 2022 SCC 12 (S.C.C.) (ss. 8, 9) R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.) (s. 10(b)); R. v. F. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 17, 2022 SCC 17 (S.C.C.) (s. 11(b)); R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.) (s. 12); R. v. J. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 28, 2022 SCC 28 (S.C.C.) (ss. 7, 11(c) and (d)); R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.) (s. 10(b)) https://doi.org/10.22233/20412495.1022.32 R. v. Tessier, [2022] S.C.J. No. 35, 2022 SCC https://doi.org/10.1097/QCO.0000000000000848 35 (S.C.C.) (s. 10(b)); and R. v. Beaver, [2022] S.C.J. No. 54, 2022 SCC 54 (S.C.C.) (ss. 9, 10(a) and (b)). Section 24(2) arose five times, in R. v. Stairs, [2022] S.C.J. No. 11, 2022 SCC 11 (S.C.C.); R. v. Tim, [2022] S.C.J. No. 12, 2022 SCC 12 (S.C.C.); R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.58680/cc202232205 R. v. Tessier, [2022] S.C.J. No. 35, 2022 SCC 35 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.JAA.0000830368.67069.fc (S.C.C.); R. v. Beaver, [2022] S.C.J. No. 54, 2022 SCC 54 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.51202/0342-3743-2022-5-054

12 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.); 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.); and R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.).

13 Five of the Court's Charter decisions, or almost half, are included in that list: R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.); R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.); R. v. J. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 28, 2022 SCC 28 (S.C.C.); R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.); and R. v. Sharma, [2022] S.C.J. No. 39, 2022 SCC 39 (S.C.C.). In addition, the Review designated Bissonnette as a landmark decision.

14 Except where indicated, the data and numbers in this discussion are drawn from the The Supreme Court of Canada, 2022 Year in Review (2023), online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/review-revue/2022/yr-ra2022-eng.pdf.

15 This trajectory is discussed in J. Cameron, "The McLachlin Court and the Charter in 2012", in B. Berger & S. Lawrence, eds., Osgoode's Annual Constitutional Cases Conference (2013) 63 S.C.L.R. (2d) 15 at 20-21.

16 J. Cameron, "Law, Politics and Legacy Building at the McLachlin Court in 2014", in B. Berger & S. Lawrence, eds., Osgoode's Annual Constitutional Cases Conference (2015) 71 S.C.L.R. (2d) 3 at 9.

17 In its final five years, from 2013 to 2017, the McLachlin Court respectively heard 75, 80, 63, 63 and 66 appeals. From 2018 to 2022, the Wagner Court respectively heard 66, 69, 41, 58 and 52 appeals. Supreme Court of Canada, 2022 Year in Review (2023), "Breakdown of Appeals Heard", online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/review-revue/2022/yr-ra2022eng.pdf at 32.

18 Supreme Court of Canada, Year in Review 2022 (2023), "Delivery of Decisions", online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/review-revue/2022/yr-ra2022-eng.pdf at 33.

19 Supreme Court of Canada, Year in Review 2022 (2023), "Breakdown of Appeals Heard, Types of Appeals", online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/review-revue/2022/yr-ra2022-eng.pdf at 32.

20 Supreme Court of Canada, Year in Review 2022 (2023), "Breakdown of Cases Filed at Court", online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/review-revue/2022/yr-ra2022-eng.pdf at 31.

21 Supreme Court of Canada, Year in Review 2018 (2019), "Ten-Year Trends", online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/review-revue/2018/index-eng.aspx at 12.

22 Supreme Court of Canada, Year in Review 2018 (2019), "Ten-Year Trends", online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/review-revue/2018/index-eng.aspx at 12. The success rate was as high as 13 per cent (2011) and as low as 8 per cent (2016).

23 The numbers per year are 42 (2018); 36 (2019); 34 (2020); 34 (2021); and 30 (2022); Supreme Court of Canda, Year in Review 2022 (2023), "Ten-Year Trends, Outcomes of Leave Applications Referred for Decision", online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/review-revue/2022/yr-ra2022-eng.pdf at 31.

24 Cambie Surgeries Corp. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2022] B.C.J. No. 1294, 2022 BCCA 245 (B.C.C.A.). On April 6, 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Cambie Surgeries' application for leave to appeal.

25 Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2002] S.C.J. No. 33, 2005 SCC 35 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Chaoulli"] (deciding by 4-1-4 vote that Quebec's restrictions on private health insurance were invalid, with a plurality of four concluding that the restrictions unconstitutionally violated s. 7 of the Charter).

26 The Court was unanimous in R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.); R. v. Sullivan, [2022] S.C.J. No. 19, 2022 SCC 19 (S.C.C.); R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.); and R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.); it divided by 5-4 vote in R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.); R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.); R. v. Sharma, [2022] S.C.J. No. 39, 2022 SCC 39 (S.C.C.); and R. v. Beaver, [2022] S.C.J. No. 54, 2022 SCC 54 (S.C.C.).

27 The Charter claim prevailed in R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.); R. v. Sullivan, [2022] S.C.J. No. 19, 2022 SCC 19 (S.C.C.); R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.51202/2366-6943-2022-91-016 R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.); R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.); and R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.). Note that Brown and Sullivan are companion cases and double count, or overstate, the Charter's success rate. Meanwhile, the claim failed in R. v. Stairs, [2022] S.C.J. No. 11, 2022 SCC 11 (S.C.C.); R. v. Tim, [2022] S.C.J. No. 12, 2022 SCC 12 (S.C.C.); R. v. F. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 17, 2022 SCC 17 (S.C.C.); R. v. J. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 28, 2022 SCC 28 (S.C.C.); R. v. Tessier, [2022] S.C.J. No. 35, 2022 SCC 35 (S.C.C.); R. v. Sharma, [2022] S.C.J. No. 39, 2022 SCC 39 (S.C.C.); and R. v. Beaver, [2022] S.C.J. No. 54, 2022 SCC 54 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.51202/0342-3743-2022-5-054

28 The Chief Justice and Moldaver J. only supported the Charter in the Court's four unanimous decisions.

29 While Karakatsanis J. decided against the Charter in R. v. J. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 28, 2022 SCC 28 (S.C.C.); R v. F. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 17, 2022 SCC 17 (S.C.C.); and R. v. Tessier, [2022] S.C.J. No. 35, 2022 SCC 35 (S.C.C.), Brown J. decided against the claim in R. v. F. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 17, 2022 SCC 17 (S.C.C.); R. v. J. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 28, 2022 SCC 28 (S.C.C.) (partial dissent); R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.) (partial dissent); and R. v. Sharma, [2022] S.C.J. No. 39, 2022 SCC 39 (S.C.C.). Justice Martin decided against the claim in R. v. J. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 28, 2022 SCC 28 (S.C.C.) and R. v. F. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 17, 2022 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).

30 In addition to the Court's four unanimous decisions, Côté J. also supported the Charter claim in R. v. F. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 17, 2022 SCC 17 (S.C.C.); in part in R. v. J. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 28, 2022 SCC 28 (S.C.C.); and in R. v. Beaver, [2022] S.C.J. No. 54, 2022 https://doi.org/10.51202/0342-3743-2022-12-028 SCC 54 (S.C.C.); Kasirer and Jamal JJ. supported the Charter claim in R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.58680/cc202232205 R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 https://doi.org/10.1215/00265667-9993013 (S.C.C.); and R. v. Sharma, [2022] S.C.J. No. 39, 2022 SCC 39 (S.C.C.); and Rowe J. supported it in part in R. v. J. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 28, 2022 SCC 28 (S.C.C.) and R v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1080/14432471.2022.2057075

31 R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.) (Moldaver J.); R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.); and R. v. Sullivan, [2022] S.C.J. No. 19, 2022 SCC 19 (S.C.C.) (Kasirer J.); and R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.) (Wagner C.J.C.). The Chief Justice also wrote the Court's unanimous opinion in British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Council of Canadians with Disabilities, [2022] S.C.J. No. 27, 2022 SCC 27 (S.C.C.) and Murray-Hall v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2023] S.C.J. No. 10, 2023 SCC 10 (S.C.C.).

32 Justice O'Bonsawin co-wrote brief reasons with the Chief Justice in R. v. McColman, [2023] S.C.J. No. 8, 2023 SCC 8 (S.C.C.).

33 Justice Brown wrote dissenting reasons in R. v. Tim, [2022] S.C.J. No. 12, 2022 SCC 12 (S.C.C.); R. v. J. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 28, 2022 SCC 28 (S.C.C.) (dissenting in part); R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.) (dissenting in part); and R. v. Tessier, [2022] S.C.J. No. 35, 2022 SCC 35 (S.C.C.); Côté J. dissented in R. v. F. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 17, 2022 SCC 17 (S.C.C.); R. v. J. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 28, 2022 SCC 28 (S.C.C.) (dissenting in part); and R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.) (with Rowe J.). While Karakatsanis J. wrote dissents in R. v. Stairs, [2022] S.C.J. No. 11, 2022 SCC 11 (S.C.C.) and R. v. Sharma, [2022] S.C.J. No. 39, 2022 SCC 39 (S.C.C.); Rowe J. dissented in R. v. J. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 28, 2022 SCC 28 (S.C.C.) (dissenting in part); and Martin J. dissented in R. v. Tessier, [2022] S.C.J. No. 35, 2022 SCC 35 (S.C.C.) and R. v. Beaver, [2022] S.C.J. No. 54, 2022 SCC 54 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.51202/0342-3743-2022-5-054

34 It did not raise constitutional issues, but Kasirer and Jamal JJ. dissented from the majority opinion in an important decision on constructive taking. Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality, [2022] S.C.J. No. 36, 2022 SCC 36 (S.C.C.).

35 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.); R. v. Tessier, [2022] S.C.J. No. 35, 2022 SCC 35 (S.C.C.); and R. v. Beaver, [2022] S.C.J. No. 54, 2022 SCC 54 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1820-3331

36 Justice Jamal's majority opinion stated that subsequent corrective, Charter-compliant steps do not cure the violations, but "dissociate" the breach from the impugned evidence, constituting a "fresh start" that severs the connection between the two. R. v. Beaver, [2022] S.C.J. No. 54 at para. 106, 2022 SCC 54 (S.C.C.). Justice Martin's dissenting opinion challenged that view, maintaining that to segment that analysis in that way divides an analysis that should be holistic, removing the breach from the analysis and placing a heavy finger on s. 24(2). R. v. Beaver, [2022] S.C.J. No. 54 at para. 140, 2022 SCC 54 (S.C.C.).

37 The discussion does not include R. v. J. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 28, 2022 SCC 28 (S.C.C.) (considering and upholding provisions that restrict a defendant's access to a complainant's private records in sexual assault proceedings).

38 R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1177/14647001211062739

39 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 745.51.

40 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 33.1.

41 R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.). The Court unanimously agreed that lifetime registration on the federal sex offender registry was unconstitutional.

42 R. v. Sharma, [2022] S.C.J. No. 39, 2022 SCC 39 (S.C.C.).

43 Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, [2011] S.C.J. No. 44, 2011 SCC 44 (S.C.C.) (holding that the minister's failure to exempt a safe injection site from prohibitions on drug trafficking and possession unconstitutionally violated s. 7 of the Charter); Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] S.C.J. No. 72, 2013 SCC 72 (S.C.C.) (invalidating bawdy house, living on the avails and soliciting provisions in the Criminal Code); Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] S.C.J. No. 5, 2015 SCC 5 (S.C.C.) (invalidating the Criminal Code's prohibition on assisted suicide).

44 At 42 per cent, unanimity was lowest in 2019: Supreme Court of Canada, 2022 Year in Review (2023), "Percentage of Unanimous Decisions" graph, online: https://www.scccsc.ca/review-revue/2022/yr-ra2022-eng.pdf at 33.

45 At the time, those serving consecutive sentences totalling 75 years included Jason Bourque, John Paul Ostamas, Derek Saretsky and Dellen Millard; others serving sentences for 50 years included Mark Smich, Edward Downey, Joshua Frank and Jason Klaus.

46 R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23 at paras. 10-12, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.).

47 R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23 at para. 141, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.).

48 R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23 at para. 78, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.).

49 R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23 at para. 12, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.).

50 R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23 at para. 8, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.).

51 R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23 at paras. 48, 50, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.).

52 R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23 at para. 9, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.).

53 R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23 at para. 94, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.).

54 R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23 at para. 143, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.).

55 Many of those sentences have now been reduced. Alex Manassian's sentence was pending at the time Bissonnette was decided; following the Court's decision Manassian, who killed nine, received a sentence of 25 years in prison without parole.

56 In this, Wagner C.J.C. took care to ensure that his discussion of comparative and international sources of law did not compromise support for his opinion by posing conflict or inconsistency with the majority opinion in Quebec (Attorney General) v. 9147-0732 Quebec inc., [2020] S.C.J. No. 32, 2020 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23 at para. 98, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.).

57 Lorrie Goldstein, "Use notwithstanding clause to overturn Supreme Court decision reducing sentences for multiple murderers", Toronto Sun, March 15, 2023, online: https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-use-notwithstanding-clause-to-overturn-supremecourt-decision-reducing-sentences-for-multiple-murderers.

58 R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23 at para. 59, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.).

59 R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23 at para. 59, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1109/MSPEC.2022.9771369

60 Sean Fine, "Supreme Court's decision to strike down life-without-parole law leads to sentencing changes", Globe and Mail, January 4, 2023, online: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-life-without-parole-canada-supreme-court-sentencing/.

61 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 33.1. This provision was enacted without delay after the Court's decision in R. v. Daviault, [1994] S.C.J. No. 77, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63 (S.C.C.).

62 Earlier decisions rejecting a defence for general intent offences include R. v. Leary, [1977] S.C.J. No. 39, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 29 (S.C.C.); and R. v. Bernard, [1988] S.C.J. No. 96, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833 (S.C.C.).

63 Specifically, s. 33.1 provides that self-induced intoxication does not provide a defence where an accused departs markedly from the standard of care and commits an offence against the bodily integrity of another person.

64 The question of automatism in both Brown and Sullivan arose from the ingestion of magic mushrooms containing psilocybin. While Brown consumed a number of alcoholic beverages before ingesting magic mushrooms and becoming psychotic, Chan drank alcohol before ingesting magic mushrooms and also becoming psychotic. R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at paras. 15-16, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.) R. v. Sullivan, [2022] S.C.J. No. 19 at paras. 12-14, 2022 SCC 19 (S.C.C.). Sullivan's case concerned a suicide attempt involving the ingestion of 30-80 capsules of Wellbutrin that led to a state of psychosis and automatism R. v. Sullivan, [2022] S.C.J. No. 19 at paras. 9 and 10, 2022 SCC 19 (S.C.C.). R. v. Sullivan also addressed the question of horizontal stare decisis and judicial comity in courts of coordinate jurisdiction.

65 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 62, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).

66 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 4, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.) (emphasizing when a defence is not available, rather than when it is available).

67 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at paras. 90-95, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.) (mens rea) and paras. 96-98 (voluntariness).

68 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 8, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).

69 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 62, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.) (distinguishing intoxication's states of being unconscious and incapable of physical movement with "impaired conscious and unwilled movements" associated with a true state of automatism), and para. 43 (confirming that the common law rule and its threshold for a defence of intoxication are not affected by the appeal).

70 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at paras. 143-166, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).

71 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at paras. 136-142, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.) (discussing alternatives for holding intoxicated offenders responsible).

72 R. v. Sullivan, [2020] O.J. No. 2452, 2020 ONCA 333 (Ont. C.A.).

73 Note that some provincial governments, like Quebec and Ontario, have been willing in recent years to immunize legislation from the Charter by invoking s. 33's override clause, both pre-emptively and reactively. In Ontario, for example, the government invoked s. 33 to protect back-to-work legislation from Charter review, and then repealed Bill 28 following a public outcry and backlash: see Hannah Alberga, "CUPE announces end to strike after Doug Ford offers to rescind education law", CTV News, November 7, 2022, online: https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/doug-ford-offers-to-rescind-legislation-that-made-strike-illegal-if-education-workersstop-striking-1.6141853. Note also that in Working Families Coalition (Canada) Inc. v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2023] O.J. No. 1010, 2023 ONCA 139 (Ont. C.A.), the Ontario Court of Appeal invalidated Ontario legislation that invoked s. 33 to protect unconstitutional limits on third-party political advertising from challenge under s. 2(b), as a violation of s. 3's guarantee of the right to vote.

74 See, e.g., R. v. Luedecke, [2008] O.J. No. 4049, 2008 ONCA 716 (Ont. C.A.) (finding mental disorder automatism in the case of a sexsomniac who committed a sexual assault while in an automatistic state of sleepwalking).

75 R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.); R. v. Sharma, [2022] S.C.J. No. 39, 2022 SCC 39 (S.C.C.); the other two are R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.) and R. v. Beaver, [2022] S.C.J. No. 54, 2022 SCC 54 (S.C.C.).

76 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 490.013(2.1).

77 Sexual Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10 [hereinafter "SOIRA"].

78 R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38 at paras. 34-47, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.) (per the majority opinion), and paras. 165-167 (per the dissent).

79 R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38 at paras. 78 and 90, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.) (stating, https://doi.org/10.1007/s15012-022-7552-0 at para. 90, that "a law that has an overbroad impact on even one individual is inconsistent with the principles of fundamental justice").

80 R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38 at paras. 78, 101, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1737-9568

81 R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38 at para. 101, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.). In the result, https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1737-9568 the Court declared mandatory registration invalid, suspended the declaration of invalidity, and granted Ndhlovu an exemption from the suspension of the declaration.

82 R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38 at paras. 180, 179, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.) (emphasis https://doi.org/10.12968/S0368-8941(22)90425-5 in original).

83 R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38 at para. 179, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.) (emphasis in original).

84 R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38 at para. 179, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.) (emphasis in original). In its own way, Brown J.'s use of italics and focus on the class of offenders and their shared characteristic provided its own answer to the majority opinion's emphasis on the s. 7 entitlements of every single individual.

85 R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38 at para. 179, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.).

86 R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38 at para. 194, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.).

87 Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2021] S.C.J. No. 34, 2021 SCC 34. As in Sharma, the Court divided 5-4 in Toronto (City), with majority reasons by the Chief Justice and Brown J., and a dissent by Abella J.

88 In the middle of the City of Toronto's municipal election in 2018, the province of Ontario enacted legislation that fundamentally restructured City Council, reducing it from 47 to 25 members. That required all wards and their boundaries to be re-drawn, ballots to be redone, and candidates for election to start over or drop out in re-drawn, enlarged and often unfamiliar wards. The question under s. 2(b) was whether the legislation's disruption of an ongoing electoral process violated freedom of expression by undermining and frustrating rights of democratic participation.

89 Section 718.2(e) of the Code provides that "all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances . . . should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders". Parliament subsequently modified the Code's provisions for conditional sentences, making this form of sentencing unavailable for any offence with a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years or life (s. 742.1(c)), and for offences prosecuted by indictment, having a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years and involving the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs (s. 742.1(e)). Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 718.2(e), 742.1(c), 742.1(e)(ii). The issue arose because Ms. Sharma, who is Indigenous, was convicted of importing cocaine and was not eligible for a conditional sentence under these provisions.

90 R. v. Sharma, [2022] S.C.J. No. 39 at para. 61, 2022 SCC 39 (S.C.C.) (emphasis added).

91 R. v. Sharma, [2022] S.C.J. No. 39 at para. 82, 2022 SCC 39 (S.C.C.).

92 Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3.

93 Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2021] S.C.J. No. 34 at para. 34, 2021 SCC 34 (S.C.C.) (describing this as an "unprecedented statutory freeze" on provincial jurisdiction, constitutionalizing a particular statutory platform - a City Council comprising 47 members - during the electoral process, and calling it "constitutionally dubious, nonsensical, and even futile").

94 The majority opinion raised the standard for breach under s. 2(b) in two ways: first, a positive rights analysis engaged Baier v. Alberta and its elevated threshold of substantial interference; second, Toronto (City) altered that threshold by requiring evidence of extreme government action that extinguishes the effectiveness of expression and "radically frustrates" expressive freedom: Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2021] S.C.J. No. 34 at paras. 27, 36, 37, 39 and 40, 2021 SCC 34 (S.C.C.).

95 For a comment on Toronto (City), see J. Cameron, "Section 2(b) solitudes: City of Toronto v. Ontario and Ward v. Quebec", Centre For Free Expression blog, February 10, 2022, online: https://cfe.torontomu.ca/blog/2022/02/freedom-expression-and-charter1982-2022-part-1-5.

96 Appointed on August 31, 2015, Justice Brown retired from the Court on June 12, 2023.

97 A short list - which only hints at Justice Brown's legacy - would include Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, [2018] S.C.J. No. 32, 2018 SCC 32 (S.C.C.) (joint dissent with Côté J., finding that the Law Society's failure to approve TWU's proposed law school unjustifiably violated the Charter's fundamental freedoms); Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), [2020] S.C.J. No. 28, 2020 SCC 28 (S.C.C.) (joint dissent with Rowe J. finding no violation of s. 15 of the Charter); Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2021] S.C.J. No. 34, 2021 SCC 34 (S.C.C.) (joint majority opinion with Wagner C.J.C., finding that the province did not violate s. 2(b) when it restructured City Council during a municipal election); Quebec (Attorney General) v. 9147-0732 Quebec inc., [2020] S.C.J. No. 32, 2020 SCC 32 (S.C.C.) (joint majority opinion with Rowe J. under s. 12 of the Charter, mapping out a principled framework and methodology for the comparative and international sources in constitutional interpretation); and References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, [2021] S.C.J. No. 11, 2021 SCC 11 (S.C.C.) (dissenting from a majority opinion upholding national standards for greenhouse has production). Though it did not engage a constitutional analysis, Côté and Brown JJ. wrote a majority opinion in Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality, [2022] S.C.J. No. 36, 2022 SCC 36 (S.C.C.), finding that a claim of constructive taking, without compensation, was well founded.

98 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.58680/cc202232205

R. v. Sharma, [2022] S.C.J. No. 39, 2022 SCC 39 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-99907-6.00009-8

99 R. v. Tessier, [2022] S.C.J. No. 35, 2022 SCC 35 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.1097/01.JAA.0000830368.67069.fc

R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1215/00265667-9993013

100 R. v. Tim, [2022] S.C.J. No. 12, 2022 SCC 12 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1002/nba.31231

101 R. v. J. (J.), [2022] S.C.J. No. 28, 2022 SCC 28 (S.C.C.).

102 The Trudeau appointees are Malcolm Rowe, Sheilah Martin, Nicolas Kasirer, Mahmud Jamal, Michelle O'Bonsawin and Mary T. Moreau. The Harper appointees are Andromache Karakatsanis, Richard Wagner and Suzanne Côté. Justice Wagner was appointed Chief Justice of Canada by Prime Minister Trudeau.