Jesse Dallas Hills v. His Majesty The King
Hills, Jesse Dallas
Law Firm / Organization
McKay Ferg LLP
Lawyer(s)

Heather Ferg

Law Firm / Organization
TingleMerrett LLP
His Majesty The King
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Robert A. Fata

Director of Public Prosecutions
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Attorney General of Ontario
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Attorney General of Nova Scotia
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Glenn Hubbard

Attorney General of Saskatchewan
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario)
Law Firm / Organization
Goddard & Shanmuganathan LLP
Law Firm / Organization
Addario Law Group LLP
Lawyer(s)

Laura Metcalfe

Canadian Bar Association
Law Firm / Organization
Peck and Company
Law Firm / Organization
Hunter Litigation Chambers
Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Law Firm / Organization
Stockwoods LLP
The appellant, Jesse Dallas Hills, pled guilty to four charges from an incident in May 2014 where he swung a baseball bat and fired a shot with his rifle at an occupied vehicle, smashed the window of a parked vehicle and shot a few rounds into an occupied family residence. One of the charges was the intentional discharging of a firearm into or at a place, knowing that or being reckless as to whether another person is present in the place under s. 244.2(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, which carries a minimum four-year imprisonment sentence. Mr. Hills alleged that the minimum sentence under s. 244.2(3)(b) of the Criminal Code violated his constitutional right to not be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment by virtue of s. 12 of the Charter. At trial, Mr. Hills presented a scenario that he claimed could reasonably occur and for which the four-year mandatory minimum sentence would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Meanwhile, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s finding of unconstitutionality and set aside the declaration of invalidity in a judgment containing three separate concurring reasons. Justices O’Ferrall and Wakeling were critical of the expansive usage of hypotheticals in this Court’s s. 12 Charter jurisprudence and invited this Court to abandon it. The appeal against the sentence for discharging a firearm was allowed and the sentence was increased to four years imprisonment.
Supreme Court of Canada
39338
Criminal law
No uploaded documents