Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Last updated

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.

Contents

The section states:

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Definition

R. v. Smith [1] was the first case in which section 12 was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court, however, could and did follow previous interpretations of cruel and unusual punishments in pre-Charter case law, namely Miller and Cockriell v. The Queen (1977). Cruel and unusual punishment was thus defined as punishment "so excessive as to outrage standards of decency" or "grossly disproportionate to what would have been appropriate." Justice Lamer, writing for the Court in R. v. Smith, went on to provide some guides as to how to measure proportionality, listing as special considerations the seriousness of the crime committed by the individual, the "personal characteristics" of the individual, and the various types of punishments available that could effectively "punish, rehabilitate or deter this particular offender or to protect the public from this particular offender."

Later, the Court would add in R. v. Goltz (1991) [2] and R. v. Morrisey (2000) [3] that how the individual would be impacted by the punishment in practise, the objectives of the punishment, whether other kinds of punishments could be used instead, and how other types of criminals are punished could be relevant to a section 12 test. Still, the test is not strict but rather deferential to the government. In Steele v. Mountain Institution (1990), [4] Justice Cory wrote for the Court that a judicial discovery of a cruel and unusual punishment should be "rare and unique". The Parliament of Canada's ability to judge the appropriateness of various punishments is not absolute, but courts are generally encouraged to exercise restraint in correcting Parliament.

In 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada held that section 12 protects humans only, and does not protect corporations. [5] [6]

Prison sentences

If longer than necessary, to a degree that can be considered "grossly disproportionate," certain prison sentences can be considered cruel and unusual and therefore unconstitutional under section 12. In R. v. Smith itself, the prison sentence of an alleged cocaine dealer was deemed so long as to be cruel and unusual under the Charter. While Parliament had the power to make laws in which a certain crime could result in a minimum length of time that must be served in prison, this could be unconstitutional if the law prescribes that same minimum length of time for a type of crime that "covers many substances of varying degrees of danger." Specifically, the law did not consider how much cocaine was involved and why the rights claimant was acquiring it.

The Court again considered whether a minimum prison sentence perceived as lengthy would be cruel and unusual in the case R. v. Latimer. [7] Latimer, who had murdered his disabled daughter, argued the 10 years that he would definitely serve (he could be in prison for longer if denied parole) was so long as to be cruel and unusual. The basis of this argument was that the murder was committed as a type of mercy killing. The Court in this case decided the sentence was not unconstitutional, noting the crime "resulted in the most serious of all possible consequences, namely, the death of the victim." While Latimer had been convicted of second as opposed to first-degree murder, the Court added that "second degree murder is an offence accompanied by an extremely high degree of criminal culpability." In this section 12 case, the principle of mens rea was considered vital.

Execution

In the 2001 extradition case United States v. Burns , [8] the Supreme Court declined to decide whether capital punishment would classify in Canadian law as a cruel and unusual punishment and therefore a direct violation of section 12. They did, however, state that execution certainly "engages the underlying values of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment," noting its impossibility to correct (in cases of wrongful conviction) and its perceived "arbitrary" nature, as well as the skepticisms that it really would decrease crime rates. The Court also took into consideration that Parliament had already abolished the death penalty within Canada itself.

Torture

Torture is inherently cruel and unusual under section 12. As the Supreme Court wrote in Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), [9] torture is "so inherently repugnant that it could never be an appropriate punishment, however egregious the offence." The Court noted that the "prospect of torture induces fear and its consequences may be devastating, irreversible, indeed, fatal." This view of torture goes back to R. v. Smith, in which Justice Lamer said that "some punishments or treatments will always be grossly disproportionate and will always outrage our standards of decency: for example, the infliction of corporal punishment."

In addition to violating section 12, in Suresh it was found that torture violates rights to liberty and security of person under section 7, and shocks the conscience. Therefore, Canada may not extradite people to countries where they may face torture.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment regulating forms of punishment

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects against imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights. The amendment serves as a limitation upon the federal government to impose unduly harsh penalties on criminal defendants before and after a conviction. This limitation applies equally to the price for obtaining pretrial release and the punishment for crime after conviction. The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase in common law describing punishment that is considered unacceptable due to the suffering, pain, or humiliation it inflicts on the person subjected to the sanction. The precise definition varies by jurisdiction, but typically includes punishments that are arbitrary, unnecessary, overly severe compared to the crime, or not generally accepted in society.

Robert William Latimer is a Canadian canola and wheat farmer who was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of his daughter Tracy Lynn Latimer. This case caused a national controversy concerning the definition and ethics of euthanasia as well as the rights of people with disabilities, and resulted in two Supreme Court decisions, R. v. Latimer (1997), on section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and later R. v. Latimer (2001), concerning cruel and unusual punishments with reference to section 12 of the Charter. Latimer was released on day parole in March 2008 and was granted full parole in December 2010.

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.

<i>Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (AG), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76, 2004 SCC 4 – known also as the spanking case – is a leading Charter decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court upheld section 43 of the Criminal Code that allowed for a defence of reasonable use of force by way of correction towards children as not in violation of section 7, section 12 or section 15(1) of the Charter.

Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects the mobility rights of Canadian citizens, and to a lesser extent that of permanent residents. By mobility rights, the section refers to the individual practice of entering and exiting Canada, and moving within its boundaries. The section is subject to the section 1 Oakes test, but cannot be nullified by the notwithstanding clause.

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides those in Canada 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>Kindler v Canada (Minister of Justice)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Kindler v Canada (Minister of Justice) was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that held that the government policy that allowed for extradition of convicted criminals to a country in which they may face the death penalty was valid under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court repeated that finding in Reference re Ng Extradition in 1991. However, Kindler was essentially overruled in 2001 with United States v. Burns.

<i>Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG), [1993] 3 SCR 519 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision where the prohibition of assisted suicide was challenged as contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") by a terminally ill woman, Sue Rodriguez. In a 5–4 decision, the Court upheld the provision in the Criminal Code.

<i>R v Latimer</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Latimer, [2001] 1 SCR 3 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in the controversial case of Robert Latimer, a Saskatchewan farmer convicted of murdering his disabled daughter Tracy Latimer. The case had sparked an intense national debate as to the ethics of what was claimed as a mercy killing. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the crime could not be justified through the defence of necessity, and found that, despite the special circumstances of the case, the lengthy prison sentence given to Latimer was not cruel and unusual and therefore not a breach of section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court also ruled that Latimer was not denied rights to jury nullification, as no such rights exist. The prison sentence was thus upheld, although the court specifically noted that the federal government had the power to pardon him.

<i>United States v Burns</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

United States v Burns [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283, 2001 SCC 7, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that found that extradition of individuals to countries in which they may face the death penalty is a breach of fundamental justice under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The decision reached that conclusion by a discussion of evidence regarding the arbitrary nature of execution although the Court did not go so far as to say that execution was also unconstitutional under section 12 of the Charter, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments.

<i>Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the areas of constitutional law and administrative law. The Court held that, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in most circumstances the government cannot deport someone to a country where they risk being tortured, but refugee claimants can be deported to their homelands if they are a serious security risk to Canadians.

<i>R v Morrisey</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Morrisey, [2000] 2 SCR 90 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment under section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that there can be exemptions for mandatory prison sentences where the sentence is unreasonable or has an effect upon the accused that may be considered harsh.

<i>Canada v Schmidt</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canada v Schmidt, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 500, is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the applicability of fundamental justice under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on extradition. While fundamental justice in Canada included a variety of legal protections, the Court found that in considering the punishments one might face when extradited to another country, only those that "shock the conscience" would breach fundamental justice.

<i>R v Smith</i> (1987) Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Smith, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision. The Court struck down a mandatory seven-year sentence requirement for the importation of drugs as a violation of the right against cruel and unusual punishment contrary to section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>R v Latimer</i> (1997) Supreme Court of Canada case on right to counsel

R v Latimer, [1997] 1 SCR 217, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in the controversial case of Robert Latimer, a Saskatchewan farmer convicted of murdering his disabled daughter Tracy. The case involved consideration of arbitrary detention under section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and rights to an explanation for detention and rights to counsel under section 10. The Supreme Court ultimately overturned Latimer's conviction due to the Crown's improper actions at the jury selection stage. As a result, the decision was the first given by the Supreme Court in the Latimer case, the second being R v Latimer on cruel and unusual punishment under section 12 of the Charter.

<i>R v Goltz</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Goltz, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right against cruel and unusual punishment under section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court considered a test for cruel and unusual punishment and found that based on the test the BC Motor Vehicle Act which requires a minimum sentence of 7 days in prison and a fine for a first conviction for driving without a licence does not violate section 12 of the Charter.

Michael Moldaver is a former Canadian judge. He was a puisne justice on the Supreme Court of Canada from his 2011 appointment by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper until his retirement in 2022. 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.

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.

<i>R v Bissonnette</i> Canadian legal decision

R v Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that life sentences without a realistic possibility of parole constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The Court unanimously struck down section 745.51 of the Criminal Code, which gave sentencing judges the discretion to stack periods of parole ineligibility for multiple murders, for violating Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

References

  1. ↑ Smith v. R., 1987 CanLII 64 (S.C.C.), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 1045.
  2. ↑ R. v. Goltz, 1991 CanLII 51 (S.C.C.), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485.
  3. ↑ R. v. Morrisey, 2000 SCC 39 (CanLII), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 90, 2000 SCC 39.
  4. ↑ Steele v. Mountain Institution, 1990 CanLII 50 (S.C.C.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1385.
  5. ↑ The Canadian Press (November 5, 2020). "Protection against cruel punishment doesn't apply to corporations: Supreme Court". Kamloops This Week . Retrieved November 18, 2020.
  6. ↑ Quebec (Attorney General) v 9147-0732 Québec inc, 2020 SCC 32 at para 1.
  7. ↑ R. v. Latimer, 2001 SCC 1 (CanLII), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 1.
  8. ↑ United States v. Burns, 2001 SCC 7 (CanLII), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283, 2001 SCC 7.
  9. ↑ Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3.
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.