R. v. Luxton

R. v. Luxton

Majority held s.213(a) infringed ss.7 and 11(d) of the Charter (per Martineau) and was not justified under s.1, but s.214(5)(e) together with s.669(a) is a constitutionally valid sentencing classification reflecting proportionality and individualization, does not violate ss.7,9 or 12 or s.2(e) of the Bill of Rights, and in any event the trial error was harmless under s.613(1)(b)(iii) so conviction and life sentence with 25‑year parole ineligibility are upheld.

Citation
[1990] 2 SCR 711
Parties
Appellant: Robert Nelson Luxton; Respondent: Her Majesty The Queen; Intervener: Attorney General of Canada; Intervener: Attorney General for Ontario; Intervener: Attorney General of Quebec; Intervener: Attorney General of Manitoba; Intervener: Attorney General of British Columbia
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 September 1990
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Alberta Court of Appeal Following Conviction for First Degree Murder; Constitutional Issues Decided Alongside Affirmation of Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Charter S.7, Charter S.11(d), Charter S.9, Charter S.12, Constructive Murder, Forcible Confinement, Mandatory Sentencing, S.214(5)(e), S.213(a)
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Charter S.7 Charter S.11(d) Charter S.9 Charter S.12 Constructive Murder Forcible Confinement +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Nelson Luxton

Appellant

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

Attorney General of Canada

Intervener

Attorney General for Ontario

Intervener

Attorney General of Quebec

Intervener

Attorney General of Manitoba

Intervener

Attorney General of British Columbia

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Alberta Court of Appeal Following Conviction for First Degree Murder; Constitutional Issues Decided Alongside Affirmation of Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.213(a) of the Criminal Code contravenes ss.7 and/or 11(d) of the Charter
  2. 2 If so, whether s.213(a) is justified under s.1 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether s.214(5)(e) of the Criminal Code is inconsistent with s.7 of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held s.213(a) infringed ss.7 and 11(d) of the Charter (per Martineau) and was not justified under s.1, but s.214(5)(e) together with s.669(a) is a constitutionally valid sentencing classification reflecting proportionality and individualization, does not violate ss.7,9 or 12 or s.2(e) of the Bill of Rights, and in any event the trial error was harmless under s.613(1)(b)(iii) so conviction and life sentence with 25‑year parole ineligibility are upheld.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction for first degree murder and life sentence with parole ineligibility for 25 years affirmed