In two split decisions Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada issued landmark rulings on the use of mandatory minimum sentences.
The Supreme Court said that in one case – which involved a person convicted of firing a gun into a building – the mandatory minimum sentence of four years was unconstitutional, although that law was later struck down.
In two other cases involving robberies with firearms, the high court concluded that mandatory minimum sentences were constitutional regardless of whether the weapons used were prohibited weapons.
The decision in the robbery cases comes just months after the mandatory minimum four-year sentence for using a legal firearm in a robbery was lifted by the Liberal government on November 17.
A mandatory minimum sentence of five years for committing robbery with a prohibited firearm, which was not overturned, was found constitutional by the supreme court.
The Supreme Court also ruled that the use of hypothetical cases to test the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences should continue.
One case involved Jesse Dallas Hills, who used a shotgun in 2014 to shoot into a residential home, penetrating a wall and forcing a family of four — two adults and two children — to take shelter in the basement.
None of the residents were shot in the incident.
At the time of the crime, a person convicted of discharging a firearm into a building faced a mandatory minimum sentence of four years, but that provision was also repealed in November.
Hypothetical proof
Hills challenged the minimum sentence, using a hypothetical scenario to argue that it violated section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which prohibits cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
The hypothetical case presented in court was about someone shooting a BB gun in a garden shed.
Under the law, BB guns and paint guns qualify as firearms because both devices have enough force to pop a pig’s eye — the standard test for classifying something as a firearm in Canada.
The hypothetical case showed that the law makes no distinction between a garden shed or a family home when setting the standard for shooting into a building.
The trial court ruled that the minimum sentence would have constituted cruel and unusual treatment and instead sentenced Hills to three and a half years in prison.
The Alberta Court of Appeal overturned that decision and imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of four years.
The sentence is not cruel and unusual: Côté
In an 8-to-1 decision, the Supreme Court overturned that decision, saying that the mandatory minimum in this case “covers a wide range of actions, ranging from actions that pose little danger to the public to those that pose a serious risk.”
The Supreme Court said the punishment provision was too severe for minor offenses and “cannot be justified by mere deterrence and exposure and the punishment shows complete disregard for the norms of punishment”.
Justice Suzanne Côté dissented from the majority.
“Parliament did not intend to capture the reckless discharge of firearms in situations that present little danger to the public,” Côté wrote in his dissent.
“Rather, it was directed at offenders who specifically addressed the fact that the disposal of their firearm would endanger the life or safety of others.”
Côté said the minimum sentence of four years in prison did not “meet the high threshold established by the Court for cruel and unusual punishment.”
Mandatory minimum sentence upheld
In the other two cases, we are talking about separate acts of armed robbery.
In the first case, Ocean William Storm Hilbach was convicted of robbery with a prohibited weapon, a crime that still carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years.
Hilbach challenged the mandatory minimum sentence under section 12 of the Charter. The court agreed and sentenced him to just under two years.
In the second case, Curtis Zvozdeski pleaded guilty to robbery with a nonprohibited firearm, a felony that carries a mandatory minimum sentence of four years. That sentencing provision was also lifted on November 17.
At sentencing, Zwozdesky also filed a Section 12 Charter challenge, citing five separate hypothetical scenarios in an attempt to prove that the mandatory minimum sentence is unconstitutional.
The court in this case sided with Zvozdeski and imposed a three-year sentence.
The Alberta Court of Appeal heard the two cases together and dismissed the appeals, adding one year to Hilbach’s sentence, concluding that a three-year term was an “appropriate and proportionate sentence.”
In a 6-1-2 decision, the Supreme Court said that imposing a mandatory minimum sentence on someone convicted of using a firearm to commit a robbery, whether or not that firearm was prohibited, was constitutional in both cases.
In Hilbach’s case, the majority concluded that the mandatory minimum sentences of five and four years, respectively, were constitutional.
Côté agreed with the majority, using different arguments. Judges Mahmoud Jamal and Andromaha Karakatsanis dissented, arguing that they believe both mandatory minimum sentences violate section 12 of the Charter.
Add Comment