R. v. Chouhan

R. v. Chouhan

Majority: The Criminal Code amendments abolishing peremptory challenges are constitutional because the reformed jury selection regime viewed as a whole continues to secure an independent and impartial jury under s.11(d) and does not diminish the state’s obligations under s.11(f); the amendments are procedural in nature and therefore apply immediately to jury selections commencing on or after September 19, 2019; accordingly the Crown's appeal succeeds and the respondent's conviction is restored; cross-appeal dismissed.

Citation
2021 SCC 26
Parties
Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal: Her Majesty The Queen; Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal: Pardeep Singh Chouhan; Intervener: Attorney General of Canada; Intervener: Attorney General of Manitoba; Intervener: Attorney General of British Columbia; Intervener: Attorney General of Alberta; Intervener: Aboriginal Legal Services Inc.; Intervener: Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense; Intervener: David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights; Intervener: Canadian Association of Black Lawyers; Intervener: Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association; Intervener: Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers; Intervener: South Asian Bar Association of Toronto; Intervener: Advocates' Society; Intervener: Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa; Intervener: Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario); Intervener: Debbie Baptiste; Intervener: British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (first Degree Murder) / Supreme Court of Canada Appeal and Cross Appeal Judgment (final Reasons Delivered)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; conviction restored (majority); two justices dissented in part
Legal Topics
Peremptory Challenges, Jury Selection, Charter Ss.11(d) and 11(f), Retrospective Application of Statutes, Bill C 75, Stand Aside Power, Challenge for Cause, Jury Representativeness
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Peremptory Challenges Jury Selection Charter Ss.11(d) and 11(f) Retrospective Application of Statutes Bill C 75 +3 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal

Pardeep Singh Chouhan

Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal

Attorney General of Canada

Intervener

Attorney General of Manitoba

Intervener

Attorney General of British Columbia

Intervener

Attorney General of Alberta

Intervener

Aboriginal Legal Services Inc.

Intervener

Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense

Intervener

David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights

Intervener

Canadian Association of Black Lawyers

Intervener

Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association

Intervener

Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers

Intervener

South Asian Bar Association of Toronto

Intervener

Advocates' Society

Intervener

Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa

Intervener

Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario)

Intervener

Debbie Baptiste

Intervener

British Columbia Civil Liberties Association

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (first Degree Murder) / Supreme Court of Canada Appeal and Cross Appeal Judgment (final Reasons Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether abolition of peremptory challenges violates s.11(d) Charter right to fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal
  2. 2 Whether abolition of peremptory challenges violates s.11(f) Charter right to benefit of trial by jury
  3. 3 Whether amendments abolishing peremptory challenges apply to trials pending when amendments came into force (temporal/retrospective scope)

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: The Criminal Code amendments abolishing peremptory challenges are constitutional because the reformed jury selection regime viewed as a whole continues to secure an independent and impartial jury under s.11(d) and does not diminish the state’s obligations under s.11(f); the amendments are procedural in nature and therefore apply immediately to jury selections commencing on or after September 19, 2019; accordingly the Crown's appeal succeeds and the respondent's conviction is restored; cross-appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; conviction restored (majority); two justices dissented in part

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Cross-appeal dismissed