There is a section 486.4 publication ban in this matter.Mr. Hills, a person of Métis heritage, pled guilty to four offences from an incident in May 2014 where he fired several shots with his rifle at an occupied vehicle and into an occupied family residence. One of the offences he pled guilty to is the intentional discharging of a firearm into or at a place, knowing or being reckless as to whether another person is present. This offence carries a four-year mandatory minimum sentence. At his sentencing, Mr. Hills persuaded the court that the mandatory minimum sentence was unconstitutional because it is cruel and unusual punishment contrary to section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and could not be saved by section 1. The sentencing judge therefore found the four-year mandatory minimum sentence was of no force and effect, and instead imposed a sentence of three and a half years. The Crown appealed. A unanimous panel of the Court of Appeal of Alberta overturned the sentencing judge’s decision, finding instead that the four-year mandatory minimum sentence is not cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore imposed a four-year sentence on Mr. Hills. Mr. Hills obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. He presents two issues on this appeal: whether the four-year mandatory minimum sentence is unconstitutional, and whether the Court of Appeal for Alberta made an error when it failed to consider Mr. Hills’ status as a Métis person when determining his sentence.

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related