|
Charter - s.15 Discrimination (6). R. v. T.M.
In R. v. T.M. (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal issued supplementary reasons for allowing a Crown appeal, explaining "in greater detail why ss. 42(5)(a) ['Considerations as to youth sentence - Deferred custody and supervision order'] and 42(2)(p) ['Considerations as to youth sentence - Youth sentence'] of the YCJA do not violate ss. 7 or 15(1) of the Charter".
Here the court reviews current basics of Charter s.15 discrimination law:(1) Legal Framework
[20] Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides:Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. [21] The governing two-step test for a s. 15(1) claim is well established. A claimant must demonstrate that the challenged law: (1) creates a distinction based on an enumerated or analogous ground; and (2) that the distinction is discriminatory. As the Supreme Court explained in R. v. Sharma, 2022 SCC 39, [2022] 3 S.C.R. 147, at para. 38, substantive equality is protected by means of this test. It requires an examination of the claimant group’s full circumstances, the disadvantages it faces, and the actual impact of the impugned law: Sharma, at paras. 28, 37-38, 49, 51.
[22] Section 15(1) therefore demands careful attention to the unique needs and vulnerabilities of young people: R. v. C.P., 2021 SCC 19, [2021] 1 S.C.R. 679, at para. 161, per Wagner C.J. Young people are not simply “miniature adults”: McCormick v. McCormick, 1981 CarswellOnt 2450 (S.C.), at para. 49, citing Jeffrey Wilson, Children and the Law (Toronto: Butterworth & Co., 1978); see also R. v. I.M., 2025 SCC 23, 505 D.L.R. (4th) 1, at para. 171. They are less mature, less capable of moral reasoning, and more susceptible to the negative impacts of criminal justice involvement. At the same time, they possess strong rehabilitative potential because their behavioural development and character formation remain ongoing. As I will explain, Parliament enacted the YCJA’s separate youth justice and sentencing regime precisely to address these characteristics: R. v. D.B., 2008 SCC 25, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 3, at paras. 41, 58, 62, 64, 93; I.M., at para. 171.
|
