Abstract
The adjudication of the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences by the Supreme Court of Canada presents a contradictory message. On the one hand, cases challenging the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences appear before the Court on a seemingly annual basis. On the other hand, the actual treatment of those cases is anything but routine, presenting divergent and at times contradictory messages within the narrow range of mandatory minimum sentences jurisprudence, sentencing law more generally, and the definition of Charter rights broadly speaking. The Court’s decision in R. v. Lloyd1 is the latest iteration in this line of cases, clarifying and confusing the state of the law in the best traditions of Charter adjudication.
Citation Information
Kiyani, Asad G..
"R. v. Lloyd and the Unpredictable Stability of Mandatory Minimum Litigation."
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference
81.
(2017).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1350
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol81/iss1/7
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.