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 law in Ontario requiring those found not criminally responsible for sexual offences to be registered as a sex offender for life, regardless of whether they have an absolute discharge from the review board. A criminal lawyer specializing in rights protections argued that this law might unfairly stigmatize individuals found Not Criminally Responsible, even after they are deemed to pose no risk.
About the Case and Its Constitutionality
The facts of the case involved 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 next year, he was deemed not a significant risk to the public and was granted an absolute discharge. Despite this, he was still required to be placed on the provincial sex offender registry. According to G's appeal lawyer, such a requirement could constitute a lifetime punishment for someone already deemed rehabilitated.
As a result, G sought legal consultation to challenge the constitutionality of Christopher's Law as it relates to those found not criminally responsible, pointing specifically to section 7 (the right to life, liberty, and security of person) and section 15(1) (the right to equality before and under the law and equal protection and benefit of law). The judge initially dismissed this application.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, not on the basis of the s. 7 challenge, but on 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. This decision was monumental, and G's appeal lawyer argued that it confirmed that the law was overly punitive.
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," "invoking prejudicial and stereotypical views about persons with mental illnesses… putting those found NCRMD in a worse position than those found guilty." Criminal lawyers and legal experts hailed the decision as a step towards fairness in how mental health is treated in the criminal justice system.
For individuals or families affected by similar cases, seeking legal consultation with a criminal lawyer or an appeal lawyer may provide valuable insights into the options available to challenge such laws. Additionally, this case may set a precedent for how similar statutes are interpreted in future appeals.
The Verdict
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 delayed rather than immediate remedy would not cause irreparable harm. The court was also concerned with ensuring that no preferential treatment was shown to one litigant over another.
A controversial decision, without a doubt.
For Complex Legal Cases, Contact the Lawyers at Karrass Law
At Karrass Law, our legal experts specialize in representing clients facing complex legal matters. We take a no-judgment approach and focus on fighting for your rights. Our criminal defence lawyers are also experienced with appeals and more. If you're dealing with a challenging legal situation related to criminal charges, mental health, registries, or your fundamental rights, contact our experts to book a complimentary legal consultation.