|
Charter - s.7 Overbreadth. R. v. Kloubakov
In R. v. Kloubakov (SCC, 2025) the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed a criminal appeal, this from an Alberta CA ruling that allowed a Crown appeal against an Alberta QB decision in which "the trial judge held that these offences [SS: 'receiving a material benefit from sexual services and of procuring': CCC 286.2 and 286.3] prohibited the safety measures contemplated in Bedford [SS: Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford (SCC, 2013)] and therefore infringed s. 7 of the Charter".
Here the court considers the Charter s,7 issue of 'overbreadth':[139] A law is overbroad when it is “so broad in scope that it includes some conduct that bears no relation to its purpose” (Bedford, at para. 112 (emphasis in original); J.J., at para. 136; Appulonappa, at para. 26; Carter, at para. 85; Canadian Council for Refugees, at paras. 126-63; Hogg and Wright, at § 47:25; Brun, Tremblay and Brouillet, at para. XII-6.65). A claimant must show that there is “no rational connection between the purposes of the law and some, but not all, of its impacts” (Bedford, at para. 112 (emphasis in original); J.J., at para. 136). As a matter of constitutional principle, a “law must not go further than reasonably necessary to achieve its legislative goals” (Safarzadeh-Markhali, at para. 50). A law is overbroad if it “overreaches in a single case” (Canadian Council for Refugees, at para. 141, citing Bedford, at paras. 113 and 123, and Ndhlovu, at para. 78). The overbreadth principle “allows courts to recognize that the law is rational in some cases, but that it overreaches in its effect in others” (Bedford, at para. 113; Appulonappa, at para. 26; Carter, at para. 85).
|
