Doctrine of recent possession, mandatory minimum sentence raised before Supreme Court of Canada

Duty to challenge vaccination policy before Federal Court of Appeal

Doctrine of recent possession, mandatory minimum sentence raised before Supreme Court of Canada

Doctrine of recent possession and mandatory minimum sentence issues heard before the Supreme Court of Canada. Duty of fair representation was also tackled by the Federal Court of Appeal.

Supreme Court of Canada

In Shawn Metzger v. His Majesty the King (Alberta), 40285, Metzger was convicted of home invasion robbery in 2017. Evidence presented at trial included a positive DNA test from a cigarette butt seized from underneath the truck he used to get away. He challenged the verdicts, alleging misapplication of the doctrine of recent possession of the truck and its use to infer Metzger’s guilt.

His Majesty the King, et al. v. Maxime Bertrand Marchand, 39935, Marchand was convicted of sexual interference committed against a minor under the age of 16. He was sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment. The trial judge found the mandatory minimum sentence of one year in the Criminal Code had no force and effect. The majority of the appellate court agreed.

Attorney General of Quebec, et al. v. H. V., 40093, H.W. was convicted of child luring. At sentencing, the six-month mandatory minimum sentence was declared to have no force and effect. H.V.’s sentence was suspended and imposed two years’ probation with obligatory community service. The superior court affirmed the declaration, but imposed 90 days’ imprisonment, three years’ probation, and community service. The appellate court upheld the superior court’s sentence.

Federal Court of Appeal

In Ingrid Watson v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, et al., A-45-22, Watson was an employee of Air Canada and a member of the bargaining unit represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE). Air Canada imposed a vaccination policy, with which Watson failed to comply for personal reasons. Watson sought grievance, but CUPE refused to initiate a policy grievance. Watson filed a complaint with the Canadian Industrial Relations Board (CIRB), alleging CUPE’s breach of duty of fair representation. The CIRB refused to exercise its jurisdiction over the complaint.

Recent articles & video

SCC confirms manslaughter convictions in case about proper jury instructions on causation

Law firm associate attrition continues to decline, NALP Foundation study shows

How systemizing law firm work allocation enhances diversity efforts and overcomes affinity bias

Dentons advises Saturn on $600 million acquisition of Saskatchewan oil assets

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds anesthesiologist’s liability in severe birth complications case

BC Supreme Court assigns liability in rear-end vehicle collision at Surrey intersection

Most Read Articles

BC Supreme Court rules for equal asset division in Port Alberni property dispute

BC Supreme Court rules vehicle owner and driver liable for 2011 Chilliwack collision

BC Supreme Court upholds solicitor-client privilege in medical negligence case

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds anesthesiologist’s liability in severe birth complications case