Bill C-32, Civil Marriage of Non-residents Act – Introduced February 17, 2012

Posted on by

Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Civil Marriage Act, was introduced on February 17, 2012. This Act may be cited as the Civil Marriage of Non-residents Act.

This legislation will:

“make all marriages of non-resident couples that were performed in Canada valid under Canadian law, and will also allow these couples to end their marriages if they cannot get a divorce where they live.” (Dept. of Justice Canada News Release, February 17, 2012)

For more details, please click on the following links:
Text of Bill C-32
Information about Bill C-32
News Release

S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, 2012 SCC 7

Posted on by

Charter of Rights — Civil Rights – Administrative law – Freedom of religion — Schools — Mandatory ethics and religious culture program

In 2008, the Ethics and Religious Culture (“ERC”) Program became mandatory in Quebec schools, replacing Catholic and Protestant programs of religious and moral instruction. L and J requested that the school board exempt their children from the ERC course putting forward the existence of serious harm to the children within the meaning of s. 222 of the Education Act. The director of educational resources for young students denied the exemptions. L and J requested that the school board’s council of commissioners reconsider that decision, and the council of commissioners upheld this decision. L and J then turned to the Superior Court seeking both a declaration that the ERC Program infringed their and their children’s right to freedom of conscience and religion, and judicial review of the decisions denying their requests for exemption from the ERC course. They claimed that these decisions had been made at the dictate of the Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (“Ministère”). The Superior Court dismissed the motion for declaratory judgment and the motion for judicial review. Upon motions being brought by the school board and the Attorney General of Quebec to dismiss the appeal, the Court of Appeal refused to hear L and J’s appeal as of right and also dismissed their motion for leave to appeal.

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.

S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, 2012 SCC 7

Citation: R. v. Gray, 2012 ABCA 51

Posted on by

(Reasons for Judgment Reserved of The Honourable Mr. Justice Martin)

“On June 23, 2008, George Many Shots was beaten to death in Lethbridge, Alberta. The appellant was charged with that crime and a jury convicted him of second degree murder. He appeals, arguing that his conviction was due to errors in the trial judge’s charge to the jury.
[...]
The appellant argues that the trial judge’s instructions to the jury on how to assess the credibility of witnesses, including that of the accused person, warrants a new trial. He says that in the case of the witnesses generally, this instruction was completely absent, and with regard to the appellant’s testimony, it was seriously deficient. An assessment of the merits of these allegations questions the extent to which a jury may rely on counsel’s final submissions to cure a defect in the trial judge’s charge.”

R. v. Gray, 2012 ABCA 51

R. v. T.L.M., 2012 SCC 6

Posted on by

From the Supreme Court of Canada:

“The appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador – Court of Appeal, Number 10/26, 2011 NLCA 24, dated April 8, 2011, was heard this day and the following judgment was rendered orally:

Deschamps J. − We agree with Hoegg J.A., dissenting at the Court of Appeal, that the trial judge committed no reviewable error. Therefore, the appeal is allowed.

Having heard the parties, we also agree with the dissenting judge that Count No. 1 should be stayed and that the convictions on the other Counts should be restored.”

From the Court of Appeal decision:

“The central issue on appeal is the admissibility of similar fact evidence relating to conviction of the accused for sexual assault against K.T., an eight year old girl, around the time when the assaults against the complainant are alleged to have occurred.  The trial judge accorded considerable weight to this evidence in convicting the accused on all counts.”

R. v. T.L.M., 2012 SCC 6 (Supreme Court of Canada)

R. v. T.L.M., 2011 NLCA 24 (Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador – Court of Appeal)

 

R. v. Smickle, 2012 ONSC 602

Posted on by

Molloy J.:

“At just before 2:00 am on March 9, 2009, Leroy Smickle was engaged in a very foolish act.  He was alone in the apartment of his cousin, Rojohn Brown, having elected (because he had to be at work in the morning) to stay in while his cousin went out to a club.  Mr. Smickle was reclining on the sofa, wearing boxer shorts, a white tank top, and sunglasses.  Thus clad, he was in the process of taking his picture for his Facebook page, using the webcam on his laptop computer.  For reasons known only to Mr. Smickle, and which arguably go beyond mere foolishness, he was posing in this manner with a loaded handgun in one hand.  Unfortunately for Mr. Smickle, at this exact moment, members of the Toronto Police Emergency Task Force and the Guns and Gangs Squad were gathered outside the apartment preparing to execute a search warrant in relation to Mr. Brown, who was believed to be in possession of illegal firearms.  They smashed in the door of the apartment with a battering ram, and Mr. Smickle was literally caught red-handed, with a loaded illegal firearm in his hand.  He immediately dropped the gun and the computer, as ordered to by the police, and was thereupon arrested.
[...]
For the reasons that follow, I find the minimum sentence imposed by s. 95(2) to be unconstitutional.  The appropriate sentence for the type of conduct engaged in by Mr. Smickle does not approach three years in a federal penitentiary.  To impose such a sentence on him in these circumstances, particularly in light of his unblemished past, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and would breach s. 12 of the Charter. Further, in my view, the structure of the hybrid scheme for prosecution of this offence is irrational and arbitrary and breaches s. 7 of the Charter.  The proper constitutional remedy is to strike down section 95(2) of the Criminal Code. This will take effect immediately.  I consider one year to be an appropriate sentence for Mr. Smickle and I see no reason why that should not be served in the community as a conditional sentence.”

R. v. Smickle, 2012 ONSC 602