Christopher's Law and NCR
Posted on November 20, 2020
Christopher’s Law and Its Constitutionality as It Relates to Those Found NCR
Ontario (Attorney General) v. G, 2020 SCC 38 (November 20, 2020)
A case before the Supreme Court of Canada in 2020, Ontario (Attorney General) v. G, challenged the constitutionality of Christopher’s Law, a legislative framework in Ontario requiring those found not criminally responsible of sexual offences be registered as a sex offender for life on the Ontario Sex Offender Registry (OSOR), regardless whether they have an absolute discharge from the review board. This case raised significant legal questions about the balance between public safety and the rights of individuals living with mental illness, underscoring the role of a skilled criminal defence lawyer in advocating for justice and equality under the law.
Background of the Case
The facts of the case referred to the defendant, G, who experienced a manic episode in 2001 and harmed his wife at the time. In 2002, he was found not criminally responsible, and by the following year, he was deemed not a significant risk to the public and was granted an absolute discharge. He was still required to be placed on the provincial sex offender registry.
As a result of this, G and his lawyer attempted to challenge the constitutionality of Christopher’s Law as it relates to those found not criminally responsible, specifically the following sections:
- Section 7: The right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
- Section 15(1): The right to equality before and under the law and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.
The Decision
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, not on the basis of the s. 7 challenge, but the s. 15(1) challenge. Further, the appeals court ordered that those deemed NCR and granted an absolute discharge should not be kept on the provincial registry. The Court of Appeal ordered that G be deleted from the registry immediately.
At the Supreme Court of Canada, the Attorney General of Ontario appealed the decision; the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal and dismissed the Attorney General of Ontario’s appeal. They found that the distinctions drawn in Christopher’s Law between those who found NCR as opposed to those who are not are “discriminatory,” “invok[ing] prejudicial and stereotypical views about persons with mental illnesses… put[ting] those found NCRMD in a worse position than those found guilty.”
In terms of this specific case, the Supreme Court found that some of the remedies applied by the judge at appeal were not in the interest of public safety – such as the suspended declaration of invalidity, which would remove those found NCR but who still pose a risk to the public from the registry as well. In addition, the individual exemption from the suspension granted G was deemed unnecessary since a delay, as opposed to an immediate remedy, will not cause irreparable harm. In addition, the court was concerned with ensuring that no preferential treatment was shown to one litigant over another.
What is Christopher’s Law?
Christopher’s law was introduced in response to a tragic case, aiming to improve public safety by tracking individuals convicted or found NCR of sexual offences. However, the decision from the Supreme Court of Canada highlights that even well-intentioned laws can have unintended discriminatory effects.
For individuals facing similar challenges, seeking the assistance of an experienced criminal defence lawyer is often the first step toward achieving justice.
Protect Your Rights with Karrass Law
At Karrass Law, our experienced criminal defence lawyers can help you advocate for yourself and defend your best interests. If you are being charged with a criminal offence, contact our team for a complimentary legal consultation. We will provide tailored legal advice and robust representation.