Summaries Sunday: Supreme Advocacy

On one Sunday each month we bring you a summary from Supreme Advocacy LLP of recent decisions at the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Advocacy LLP offers a weekly electronic newsletter, Supreme Advocacy Letter, to which you may subscribe.

Summary of all appeals and leaves to appeal granted (so you know what the S.C.C. will soon be dealing with) ( Mar. 11 – Apr. 8, 2015 inclusive).

Appeals

Charter: Freedom of Religion
Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12 (35201)
The Québec Ethics & Religious Culture Program is an unreasonable interference with values underlying freedom of religion re Catholic education. But there is no significant impairment of freedom of religion in requiring a course that explains the beliefs, ethics and practices of other religions in as objective and neutral a way as possible, rather than from the Catholic perspective.

Criminal Law/ Constitutional Law: Long-Gun Registration Data; Division of Powers
Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 14 (35448)
Section 29 of the federal Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, which requires the destruction of all records ontained in registries related to the registration of long guns, is constitutional, and Quebec has no legal right to the data.

Criminal Law: I.D; Photographs; Confessions
R. v. Araya,2015 SCC 11 (35669)
Trial judge’s instructions here were “adequate”, and though not perfectly phrased, the totality of the instructions, viewed in the context of the case as a whole, adequately guarded against the possibility of jurors using the photographs for “impermissible reasoning”.

Oral Judgments

Criminal Law: Direct Indictment Delay
R. v. Sanghera, 2014 BCCA 249 (36017) Judgment rendered Mar. 19, 2015

The Chief Justice: “This is an appeal as of right based on the dissenting view of Bennett J.A. of the B.C.C.A. that the five-month delay caused by the Crown’s preferment of a direct indictment, which was not considered by the trial judge, established an unreasonable delay in violation of s. 11(b) of the Charter. MacKenzie J.A., for the majority of the B.C.C.A., concluded (at para. 148): “It is my view that if [the trial judge] erred in not attributing to the Crown responsibility for the five months’ delay arising from the direct indictment, . . . such error does not upset the overall result, as I have found that other factors weigh more heavily on the other side of the balance.” The majority of the Court sees no error in the conclusion of the majority of the B.C.C.A. The majority would accordingly dismiss the appeal. Karakatsanis and Côté JJ., dissenting, would allow the appeal for the reasons of Bennett J.A. The appeal is dismissed.”

Leave to Appeal Granted

Criminal Law: Sexual Offences; Prohibition Orders
R. v. K.R.J., 2014 BCCA 382 (36200)
There is a publication ban in this case in the context of retrospectivity (or not) of prohibition orders for specified sexual offences against those under 16.