R. v. Keegstra

R. v. Keegstra

The Court held that constitutional rulings are procedurally distinct from culpability determinations and may be the subject of leave under s.40 regardless of Criminal Code appeal limits; respondents in criminal appeals may advance any argument supporting the order below (subject to the Court's discretion regarding evidentiary record); applying these principles, Keegstra did not need leave for the two non-constitutional grounds or for the limited s.319(3)(a)/s.11(d) challenge but did require leave under s.40 to pursue the broad Charter challenge to ss.319(2) and 319(3) because success on that ground would defeat the order for a new trial; overall the Crown's motion to quash was dismissed...

Citation
[1995] 2 SCR 381
Parties
Applicant/crown: Her Majesty The Queen; Respondent/accused: James Keegstra
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 May 1995
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law / Application for Leave to Appeal; Motion to Quash; Crown Appeal as of Right Under S.693(1)(a)
Outcome
Crown's motion to quash dismissed; application for leave to appeal dismissed; volume 'The Hate Crimes Law in Canada' removed from record.
Legal Topics
Appeals, Jurisdiction, Leave to Appeal, Charter Challenges, Hate Speech (wilful Promotion of Hatred), Scope of Respondent Arguments, Dual Proceedings
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Procedural Law Appeals Jurisdiction Leave to Appeal Charter Challenges Hate Speech (wilful Promotion of Hatred) +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Applicant/crown

James Keegstra

Respondent/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law / Application for Leave to Appeal; Motion to Quash; Crown Appeal as of Right Under S.693(1)(a)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear respondent's application for leave to appeal when conviction was set aside by court of appeal and Crown appeals as of right
  2. 2 Whether constitutional challenges to Criminal Code provisions must be pursued by leave under s.40 of the Supreme Court Act or can be raised by respondent in criminal appeal routes
  3. 3 Scope of arguments a respondent may raise in criminal appeals and limits imposed by evidentiary record and Court's discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that constitutional rulings are procedurally distinct from culpability determinations and may be the subject of leave under s.40 regardless of Criminal Code appeal limits; respondents in criminal appeals may advance any argument supporting the order below (subject to the Court's discretion regarding evidentiary record); applying these principles, Keegstra did not need leave for the two non-constitutional grounds or for the limited s.319(3)(a)/s.11(d) challenge but did require leave under s.40 to pursue the broad Charter challenge to ss.319(2) and 319(3) because success on that ground would defeat the order for a new trial; overall the Crown's motion to quash was dismissed...

Court Disposition

Crown's motion to quash dismissed; application for leave to appeal dismissed; volume 'The Hate Crimes Law in Canada' removed from record.

Orders

  • Crown's motion to quash application for leave to appeal dismissed.
  • Application for leave to appeal denied.