R v Ipeelee

Last updated

R v Ipeelee is a Supreme Court of Canada decision which reaffirmed the court's previous holdings in R v Gladue , in that when sentencing an Indigenous person, every sentencing judge must consider: (a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular Indigenous individual before the courts; and (b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the person before the court because of their particular Indigenous heritage or connection. [1]

Contents

Background

It has long been recognized that Indigenous Peoples are overrepresented in all points of the criminal justice system. [2] The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples found that the justice system in what is now known as Canada has failed Indigenous Peoples, both on and off-reserve, urban and rural, in all jurisdictions due to fundamentally different world views between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people with respect to issues such as substantive content of justice and process of achieving justice. [3] The Supreme Court has recognized the unbalanced ratio of imprisonment for Indigenous Peoples results from a number of factors, including poverty, substance abuse, a lack of employment opportunities, a lack of access to education, and from bias against Indigenous Peoples. [4] In order to address this overrepresentation, Parliament enacted section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, and the Supreme Court provided its first interpretation of this section in the decision of R v Gladue.R v Ipeelee, 2012, SCC 13 [5] was a consolidation of two appeals (Mr. Ipeelee’s and Mr. Ladue’s) [6] which affirmed and strengthened the Supreme Court’s direction in R v Gladue, in holding that all sentencing judges need to take specific consideration of the Aboriginal heritage of the person before the courts, and to consider all reasonable and available sentences, other than imprisonment. [7] While the Supreme Court was clear with respect to sentencing judges being under a positive duty to consider the background circumstances of Indigenous Peoples before the courts, some have called into question the effectiveness of the current regime as directed by section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code as Indigenous Peoples continued to be over-represented in the criminal justice system, despite the decision in Gladue being decided over twenty years ago. [8]

The Principles of Sentencing & Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code

Section 718 of the Criminal Code outlines the fundamental purposes of sentencing. These fundamental purposes act to protect society and to contribute to, along with crime prevention initiatives, respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one of a combination of a codified list of sentencing objectives. [9] These sentencing objectives include, but are not limited to, denunciation, deterrence, to separate offenders from society where necessary, and to assist in rehabilitating offenders. [10] On September 3, 1996, the Criminal Code was amended to include section 718.2(e). [11] Parliament enacted this remedial provision aimed at alleviating the over-incarceration rates of Indigenous offenders through sentencing. This section dictates a court must take into account all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to the victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. [12]

The Canadian legal system has always distinguished Indigenous Peoples from other Canadians on the basis of identity [13] which flows from the definition of “Indian” outlined in the Indian Act . [14] By directing the court’s attention to the circumstances of Indigenous offenders through the use of section 718.2(e), the Criminal Code acknowledges Indigenous Peoples unique position may be a result of their systemic disadvantage and postcolonial status. [15] Section 718.2(e) requires a sentencing judge to adopt a different process when considering sentences for Indigenous offenders to achieve a truly fit and proper sentence for each individual before the court. While the sentencing process is individualized, the offender is understood to exist within the context of the collective experience [16] of Indigenous Peoples in what is now called Canada. This includes recognition of “unique background and systemic factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular offender before the courts.” [17] These changes to section 718.2 recognized that crimes could not be separated from the effects of residential schools and damage done to Indigenous Peoples, which lead to a dramatic over-representation in prison populations. [18]

R v Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688

R v Gladue was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which represented the court’s first opportunity to interpret section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. This decision focused on the overrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in jails and held this overrepresentation was “a crisis in the Canadian criminal justice system.” [19] Importantly, this was not a result of Indigenous Peoples committing crime at disproportionate rates, rather the criminal justice system disproportionately incarcerating Indigenous Peoples. [20] The Court went on to clarify that when sentencing an Indigenous person, a sentencing judge requires information in two distinct areas. First, the unique or systemic background factors which may have played a role in bringing that particular person before the court. Second, the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the person before the court because of their particular aboriginal heritage or connection. [21]

R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13

The individual at the heart of this matter was Mr. Manasie Ipeelee, an Inuk man born and raised in Iqualuit, Nunavut. [22] The court noted his mother was an alcoholic who froze to death when Mr. Ipeelee was only five years old, and he was subsequently raised by his maternal grandparents. He began consuming alcohol around the age of eleven, after which he developed a serious alcohol addiction which resulted in involvement in the criminal justice system at only twelve years old. [23] His youth record contained approximately three dozen convictions, the majority being property-related offences, failures to comply with court orders, breaches of probation orders, and being unlawfully at large. [24]  

At 39 years old, Mr. Ipeelee’s had a history of abusing alcohol and committing violent offences when intoxicated. Accordingly, his adult record contained a further 24 convictions, again for mostly property-related offences. His record also included two counts of assault causing bodily harm and these convictions provided the basis for his designation as a long-term offender. [25]

Procedural history

Ontario Court of Justice, R v Ipeelee, 2009 OJ No 6413

Justice Megginson of the Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Mr. Ipeelee to three years imprisonment, less six months of pre-sentence custody (or time spend incarcerated while he was awaiting trial), emphasizing the serious nature of the offence. In his sentencing decision, Justice Megginson held that when the protection of the public is of paramount concern, as it is when sentencing for a breach of a Long-Term Supervision Order, an offender’s Indigenous status is of “diminished importance.” Mr. Ipeelee appealed this sentence on the grounds it was demonstrably unfit, and that Justice Megginson did not give appropriate consideration to his circumstances as an Indigenous man. [26]

Ontario Court of Appeal, R v Ipeelee, 2009 ONCA 892

The majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal found Mr. Ipeelee’s sentence was not demonstrably unfit, and despite the sentencing judge’s comments, Mr. Ipeelee’s Indigenous status had not factored into the sentencing decision. The Court of Appeal concluded these considerations should not affect the sentence he ultimately received. [27]

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada further strengthened the ruling of R v Gladue when it released its decision on R v Ipeelee. The majority decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was written by Justice Louis LeBel, who allowed Mr. Ipeelee’s appeal [28] and reiterated the highest court’s insistence that sentencing judges are under a positive duty to take all of the circumstances of Indigenous offenders into account when imposing any sentence. [29] Justice LeBel noted the Gladue decision and section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code has not had the anticipated impact, specifically with respect to the rates of over-incarceration of Indigenous People. [30] Instead, the situation has worsened. [31]

R v Ipeelee reaffirmed a sentencing judge’s statutory duty to take into account an Aboriginal offender’s circumstances, no matter what offence was committed. Importantly, the court held:

“The sentencing judge has a statutory duty, imposed by section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, to consider the unique circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. Failure to apply Gladue in any case involving an Aboriginal offender runs afoul of this statutory obligation.” [32]

The two issues before the Supreme Court of Canada were as follows:

1. What are the principles governing the sentencing of Aboriginal offenders, including the proper interpretation and application of the decision in R v Gladue, and the application of those principles to the breach of Mr. Ipeelee’s Long-Term Supervision Order? and

2. Given the principles of sentencing, was Mr. Ipeelee’s sentence an error in principle or did it impose an unfit sentence that warrants appellant intervention? [33]

Issue 1 – Principles of Sentencing

The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada reiterates the two-pronged analysis as previously directed in R v Gladue: the court must consider the unique systemic and background factors which might have played a role in bringing the Indigenous person before the court, and the types of sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances due to their particular Indigenous heritage or connection. [34]

Importantly, Justice LeBel finds the consideration of the background and systemic factors as directed in the first prong of a Gladue analysis forms an inherent part of the proportionality principle (meaning sentences must be comparable to both the gravity of the offence and the responsibility of the offender [35] ). To this end, systemic factors may weigh on the culpability of the offender to the extent these factors may shed light on their level of moral blameworthiness. [36]

Justice LeBel holds the second prong of the Gladue analysis does more than simply affirm the existing principles of sentencing as being inappropriate for most Indigenous offenders because they have not historically responded appropriately to the unique experiences and/or perspectives of Indigenous Peoples or communities. The distinction of communities was important. The majority held that “Gladue principles direct sentencing judges to abandon the presumption that all offenders and all communities share the same values when it comes to sentencing and to recognize that, given these fundamentally different world views, different or alternative solutions may more effectively achieve the objectives of sentencing in a particular community.” [37]

Issue 2 – Sentencing Error

The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada found the courts below made several errors, including the conclusion that protection of the public is the paramount objective when sentencing an individual for the breach of a long-term supervision order. A further error was committed when the court considered that rehabilitation only plays a small role. However, the legislative purpose of a long-term supervision order is to rehabilitate offenders and assist them to reintegrate back into society. As a result, the lower courts did not give proper attention to Mr. Ipeelee’s background factors as an Indigenous person, especially considering the Court of Appeal’s finding that the features of sentencing an Indigenous person will play little to no role when sentencing long-term offenders. The Supreme Court found this to be in error. [38]

Ultimately, the Supreme Court granted Mr. Ipeelee’s appeal, and substituted a sentence of one year’s imprisonment, with an order to abstain from alcohol use while under the long-term supervision order. [39]

Effectiveness

While the Supreme Court of Canada was unequivocal in demanding there be a requirement for sentencing judges to take into account the unique circumstances of Indigenous persons before the court, there are some who have posited section 718.2(e) has not been as effective as originally considered. Scholars who have analyzed trial and appellate decisions made subsequent to the Ipeelee decision (between March 23, 2012 and October 1, 2015) have noted the very limited impact of the proposed approach in sentencing Indigenous offenders and have argued this continues to be resounding failure despite a few isolated acts of judicial courage. [40]

Finally, there have been calls by some to extend the use of Gladue principles beyond the Canadian sentencing regime, and it is unclear to what extent the Gladue (and subsequent Ipeelee) decisions could be extended to other areas involving the treatment of Indigenous offenders by the justice system. Martin has argued Gladue principles should be extended into areas such disciplinary hearings of lawyers. [41]

Related Research Articles

<i>Youth Criminal Justice Act</i> Statute

The Youth Criminal Justice Act is a Canadian statute, which came into effect on April 1, 2003. It covers the prosecution of youths for criminal offences. The Act replaced the Young Offenders Act, which itself was a replacement for the Juvenile Delinquents Act.

Judicial notice is a rule in the law of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious or well known, or so authoritatively attested, that it cannot reasonably be doubted. This is done upon the request of the party seeking to rely on the fact at issue. Facts and materials admitted under judicial notice are accepted without being formally introduced by a witness or other rule of evidence, and they are even admitted if one party wishes to plead evidence to the contrary.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides constitutional protection to the indigenous and treaty rights of indigenous peoples in Canada. The section, while within the Constitution of Canada, falls outside the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The section does not define the term "aboriginal rights" or provide a closed list; some examples of the rights that section 35 has been found to protect are fishing, logging, hunting, the right to land and the right to enforcement of treaties. There remains a debate over whether the right to indigenous self-government is included within section 35. As of 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada has made no ruling on the matter. However, since 1995 the Government of Canada has had a policy recognizing the inherent right of self-government under section 35.

<i>Delgamuukw v British Columbia</i>

Delgamuukw v British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010, also known as Delgamuukw v The Queen, Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa, or simply Delgamuukw, is a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that contains its first comprehensive account of Aboriginal title in Canada. The Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en peoples claimed Aboriginal title and jurisdiction over 58,000 square kilometers in northwest British Columbia. The plaintiffs lost the case at trial, but the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part and ordered a new trial because of deficiencies relating to the pleadings and treatment of evidence. In this decision, the Court went on to describe the "nature and scope" of the protection given to Aboriginal title under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, defined how a claimant can prove Aboriginal title, and clarified how the justification test from R v Sparrow applies when Aboriginal title is infringed. The decision is also important for its treatment of oral testimony as evidence of historic occupation.

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides everyone in Canada with protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides Canadians with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state. Typically, this protects personal information that can be obtained through searching someone in pat-down, entering someone's property or surveillance.

<i>Calder v British Columbia (AG)</i>

Calder v British Columbia (AG) [1973] SCR 313, [1973] 4 WWR 1 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. It was the first time that Canadian law acknowledged that aboriginal title to land existed prior to the colonization of the continent and was not merely derived from statutory law.

Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as part of the Constitution of Canada, is a legal rights section that protects an individual's freedom from cruel and unusual punishments in Canada. The section has generated some case law, including the essential case R. v. Smith (1987), in which it was partially defined, and R. v. Latimer (2001), a famous case in which Saskatchewan farmer Robert Latimer protested that his long, mandatory minimum sentence for the murder of his disabled daughter was cruel and unusual.

<i>R v Rodgers</i>

R v Rodgers, 2006 SCC 15, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 554, is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the collection of blood samples from prisoners. The Court upheld the Criminal Code provision allowing for retroactive DNA samples of prisoners without notice.

<i>R v DB</i>

R v DB, 2008 SCC 25 is a constitutional law decision of the Supreme Court of Canada wherein a split Court held 5-4 that "presumptive offences" found in the Youth Criminal Justice Act is unconstitutional for violating Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In its analysis, the majority found that it was a principle of fundamental justice that young people should be entitled to a presumption of diminished moral culpability.

Criminal sentencing in Canada

In Canada, the criminal law is governed by the Criminal Code, a federal statute. The Criminal Code includes the principles and powers in relation to criminal sentences.

A Gladue report is a type of pre-sentencing and bail hearing report that a Canadian court can request when considering sentencing an offender of Aboriginal background under Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. Gladue was the first case to challenge section 718.2(e) of the criminal code

<i>R v Gladue</i>

R v Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the sentencing principles that are outlined under s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. s. 718.2(e) directs the courts to take into account the history of the offender, "with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders", and also directs the courts to seek, "all available sanctions, other than imprisonment".

<i>R v Wells</i>

R v Wells is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to sentencing principles set out in s 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, relating to Aboriginal offenders. The decision clarified the principles set out in the Court's earlier decision in R v Gladue.

Michael Moldaver is a Canadian judge. He has been a puisne justice on the Supreme Court of Canada since his 2011 appointment by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Before his elevation to the nation's top court, he served as a judge at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario for over 20 years. A former criminal lawyer, Moldaver is considered an expert in both Canadian criminal law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The totality principle is a common law principle which applies when a court imposes multiple sentences of imprisonment. The principle was first formulated by David Thomas in his 1970 study of the sentencing decisions of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales:

The effect of the totality principle is to require a sentencer who has passed a series of sentences, each properly calculated in relation to the offence for which it is imposed and each properly made consecutive in accordance with the principles governing consecutive sentences, to review the aggregate sentence and consider whether the aggregate is 'just and appropriate'. The principle has been stated many times in various forms: 'when a number of offences are being dealt with and specific punishments in respect of them are being totted up to make a total, it is always necessary for the court to take a last look at the total just to see whether it looks wrong'; 'when ... cases of multiplicity of offences come before the court, the court must not content itself by doing the arithmetic and passing the sentence which the arithmetic produces. It must look at the totality of the criminal behaviour and ask itself what is the appropriate sentence for all the offences.'

Jack Woodward

Jack Woodward is a Canadian lawyer. He specialises in Canadian Aboriginal law and is the author of Native Law, which is considered the leading Canadian publication on Aboriginal Law.

Indigenous peoples in Canada are significantly overrepresented in the Canadian justice system. They make up approximately 30% of all incarcerated individuals in Canada despite being approximately 4% of the total population.

Criminal sentencing in Canada is governed by the Canadian Criminal Code. The Criminal Code, along with the Supreme Court of Canada, have distinguished the treatment of Indigenous individuals within the Canadian Criminal Sentencing Regime.

Canada's foundation as a country is based upon the process of colonization. Through the use of Settler Colonialism in Canada the Indigenous peoples in Canada went through forced removal, genocide as well as assimilation. Canada's history of assimilation is well documented through the 1800s to the 1990s. Settler colonialism in Canada was structured in a way that systematically targeted Indigenous peoples in order to privilege the settlers who came to Canada. The impact of colonization on Canada can be seen in its culture, history, politics, laws, and legislatures. The former colonies that existed having evolved into the Provinces that exist now.

References

  1. ↑ "R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13". CanLII. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
  2. ↑ Chartrand, Larry N. (2001). "Aboriginal Peoples and Mandatory Sentencing". Osgoode Hall Law Journal. 39 (2): 449. Retrieved 9 November 2020.
  3. ↑ "Report of the Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples". Government of Canada. Retrieved 9 November 2020.
  4. ↑ "R v Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688". CanLII. para 65. Retrieved 9 November 2020.CS1 maint: location (link)
  5. ↑ "R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13". CanLII. Retrieved 9 November 2020.
  6. ↑ Tran, Dorothy (2012). "Canada Update: Important Legal News and Highlights of Significant Cases from January 2012 through March 2012". Law & Business Review Americas. 18 (2). Retrieved 9 November 2020.
  7. ↑ Penny, Rondinelli & Strobopoulos (2018). Criminal Procedure in Canada, Second Edition. LexisNexis Canada Inc.
  8. ↑ Martin, Andrew Flavelle (2020). "Gladue at Twenty: Gladue Principles in the Professional Discipline of Indigenous Lawyers". Lakehead Law Journal. 4 (1).
  9. ↑ "Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 718.2" . Retrieved 9 November 2020.
  10. ↑ "Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 718.2(a) through (d)" . Retrieved 9 November 2020.
  11. ↑ "Spotlight on Gladue: Challenges, Experiences, and Possibilities in Canada's Criminal Justice System". Department of Justice Canada. Retrieved 9 November 2020.
  12. ↑ "Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 718.2(e)" . Retrieved 9 November 2020.
  13. ↑ Gevikoglu, Jeanette (2013). "Ipeelee/Ladue and the Conundrum of Indigenous Identity in Sentencing". The Supreme Court La Review: Osgoode's Annual Constitutional Cases Conference. 63.
  14. ↑ "Indian Act, RSC 1985, c I-5" . Retrieved 9 November 2020.
  15. ↑ Anthony, Bartels, & Hopkins (2015). "Lessons Lost in Sentencing: Welding Individualised Justice to Indigenous Justice". Melbourne University Law Review. 47. Retrieved 9 November 2020.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  16. ↑ Anthony, Bartels, & Hopkins (2015). "Lessons Lost in Sentencing: Welding Individualised Justice to Indigenous Justice". Melbourne University Law Review. 31 (1).CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  17. ↑ "R v Gladue, 1999, CanLII 679 (SCC)". CanLII. Retrieved 9 November 2020.
  18. ↑ Smith, Andrea (November 21, 2018). "Beyond Gladue: How the Justice System is Still Failing Indigenous Offenders". The Tyee. Retrieved 9 November 2020.
  19. ↑ "R v Gladue, 1999, CanLII 679 (SCC)". CanLII. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  20. ↑ Robitaille, Danielle; Winocur, Erin (2019). Sentencing: Principles and Practice. Emond Publishing. p. 316. ISBN   978-1-77255-517-2.
  21. ↑ "R v Gladue, 1999, CanLII 679 (SCC)". CanLII. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  22. ↑ Sylvestre, Marie-Eve (2013). "The (Re)Discovery of the Proportionality Principle in Sentencing in Ipeelee: Constitutionalizing and the Emergence of Collective Responsibility". The Supreme Court La Review: Osgoode's Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 63. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  23. ↑ "R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13". CanLII. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  24. ↑ "R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13". CanLII. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  25. ↑ "R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13". CanLII. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  26. ↑ "R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13". CanLII. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  27. ↑ "R v Ipeelee, 2009 ONCA 892". CanLII. Retrieved 28 November 2020.
  28. ↑ "R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13". CanLII. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  29. ↑ Rudin, Jonathan (2012). "Looking Backward, Looking Forward: The Supreme Court of Canada's Decision in R v Ipeelee". The Supreme Court La Review: Osgoode's Annual Constitutional Cases Conference. 57 (1). Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  30. ↑ Sylvestre, Marie-Eve; Denis-Boileau, Marie-Andree (2018). "Ipeelee and the Duty to Resist". UBC Law Review. 51 (2). Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  31. ↑ "R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13". CanLII. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  32. ↑ "R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13". CanLII. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  33. ↑ "R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13". CanLII. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  34. ↑ "R v Gladue, 1999, CanLII 679 (SCC)". CanLII. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  35. ↑ Kunitz, Rowan (2020). "At the Mercy of the Court: Canadian Sentencing Principles and the Concept of Mercy". Canadian Criminal Law Review. 25 (1).
  36. ↑ Denis-Boileau, Marie-Andree; Sylvestre, Marie-Eve. "Ipeelee and the Duty to Resist". HeinOnline. UBC Law Review (2018) 51. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
  37. ↑ "R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13". CanLII. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
  38. ↑ "R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13". CanLII. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
  39. ↑ "R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13". CanLII. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
  40. ↑ Denis-Boileau, Marie-Andree; Sylvestre, Marie-Eve. "Ipeelee and the Duty to Resist". HeinOnline. UBC Law Review (2018) 51. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
  41. ↑ Martin, Andrew Flavelle (2020). "Gladue at Twenty: Gladue Principles in the Professional Discipline of Indigenous Lawyers". Lakehead Law Journal. 4 (1).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.