Today's decision in R. v. Quenneville, 2010 ONCA 223 dealing with findings of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder ("NCRMD") is interesting in its s. 15 analysis.
It seems to suggest that intention rather than effect is what is relevant in considering equality. (One might be reminded of the Ritz being open equally to all?). If so, the case may have significance in many areas.
The Court writes:
The section 15 issue
[21] The appellants argue that the failure to provide those who seek an NCRMD verdict with an inquiry, like that provided by s. 606(1.1) to those who seek to plead guilty, discriminates against the former on the basis of mental disability, contrary to s. 15 of the Charter.
[22] The comparison is the wrong one for s. 15 purposes. Those seeking an NCRMD verdict are not treated differently from those seeking to plead guilty, on an enumerated or analogous ground. Some of those who seek to plead guilty may be mentally disabled, and some may not. That is equally true of those who seek an NCRMD verdict. All those who seek to plead guilty receive the same procedure, whether mentally disabled or not. The same is true for all those who seek an NCRMD verdict. Neither procedure discriminates on the basis of mental disability.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
www.jmortonmusings.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment