View Single Post
Old 11-18-2025, 12:42 PM   #28312
belsarius
First Line Centre
 
belsarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cranbrook
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
This is wrong. You're thinking of leave to appeal, and there are no extensive reasons given for granting leave to the SCC (as was done in this case) or denying it.

The full reasons are available here.

https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc...21250/index.do
Ok, so by their dissent they are saying that the appeal should be allowed which overturns the sentencing judge's determination that the provisions were invalid and imposes the minimum sentences as in the 2 sections of the code?

Quote:
Per Wagner C.J. and Côté, Rowe and O’Bonsawin JJ. (dissenting): The appeal should be allowed. It has not been shown that the minimum sentences provided for in s. 163.1(4)(a) and (4.1)(a) of the Criminal Code constitute cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of s. 12 of the Charter. The impugned provisions are constitutionally valid and operative.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).

Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
belsarius is online now   Reply With Quote