R. v. E.R.D.R.

R. v. E.R.D.R.

Section 271(a)'s one‑year mandatory minimum is grossly disproportionate in reasonably foreseeable less serious cases and therefore violates s.12; the Crown failed to justify the infringement under s.1 because the measure does not minimally impair the right nor is there overall proportionality; the appropriate remedy...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 BCSC 1759
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: E.R.D.R.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Charter Challenge to Mandatory Minimum Sentence Under S.271(a) Criminal Code / S.1 Oakes Justification Hearing and Remedy Determination (judgment)
Outcome
Portion of s.271(a) imposing a one‑year mandatory minimum declared inconsistent with s.12 and of no force and effect
Legal Topics
Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (s.12), S.1 Oakes Proportionality Analysis, Remedies (reading in, Severance, Striking Down)
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Charter Law Sentencing Law Mandatory Minimum Sentences Cruel and Unusual Punishment (s.12) S.1 Oakes Proportionality Analysis Remedies (reading In, Severance, Striking Down)

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

E.R.D.R.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Charter Challenge to Mandatory Minimum Sentence Under S.271(a) Criminal Code / S.1 Oakes Justification Hearing and Remedy Determination (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the one‑year mandatory minimum in s.271(a) violates s.12 of the Charter for reasonably foreseeable less serious offenders
  2. 2 Whether any s.12 violation is justified under s.1 (Oakes test)
  3. 3 Whether the impugned provision minimally impairs the s.12 right

Ratio Decidendi

Section 271(a)'s one‑year mandatory minimum is grossly disproportionate in reasonably foreseeable less serious cases and therefore violates s.12; the Crown failed to justify the infringement under s.1 because the measure does not minimally impair the right nor is there overall proportionality; the appropriate remedy is to strike down the portion of s.271(a) imposing the one‑year mandatory minimum.

Court Disposition

Portion of s.271(a) imposing a one‑year mandatory minimum declared inconsistent with s.12 and of no force and effect

Orders

  • The portion of s.271(a) commencing after the words "10 years" is declared to be inconsistent with s.12 of the Charter and is of no force and effect.
  • No reading‑in remedy granted; the appropriate remedy is striking down the one‑year mandatory minimum portion of s.271(a).