R. v. Keegstra

R. v. Keegstra

The Court held that s.319(3)(a) does infringe s.11(d) but is a reasonable limit justified under s.1, applying and following the Court's earlier R. v. Keegstra (1990) analysis; the trial judge did not err in jury directions or in finding no prejudice from delayed disclosure, so the conviction is restored and the matter remitted for sentence appeal.

Citation
[1996] 1 SCR 458
Parties
Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal: Her Majesty The Queen; Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal: James Keegstra; Intervener: The Attorney General of Canada; Intervener: The Attorney General for Ontario; Intervener: League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Alberta Court of Appeal; Appeal Allowed; Conviction Restored; Remitted for Sentence Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; Alberta Court of Appeal judgment set aside; conviction restored; matter remitted to Court of Appeal for disposition of sentence appeal
Legal Topics
Hate Propaganda, Freedom of Expression, Reverse Onus, Section 11(d) Right to Fair Trial, Section 1 Charter Justification
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Charter of Rights Hate Propaganda Freedom of Expression Reverse Onus Section 11(d) Right to Fair Trial Section 1 Charter Justification

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal

James Keegstra

Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal

The Attorney General of Canada

Intervener

The Attorney General for Ontario

Intervener

League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Alberta Court of Appeal; Appeal Allowed; Conviction Restored; Remitted for Sentence Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.319(3)(a) of the Criminal Code infringes s.11(d) of the Charter
  2. 2 If infringement, whether s.319(3)(a) is a justifiable limit under s.1 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether trial judge erred in handling jury requests for transcript and statutory text

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that s.319(3)(a) does infringe s.11(d) but is a reasonable limit justified under s.1, applying and following the Court's earlier R. v. Keegstra (1990) analysis; the trial judge did not err in jury directions or in finding no prejudice from delayed disclosure, so the conviction is restored and the matter remitted for sentence appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; Alberta Court of Appeal judgment set aside; conviction restored; matter remitted to Court of Appeal for disposition of sentence appeal

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Cross-appeal dismissed