Source: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art12.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:38:00+00:00

Document:
Section 2(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights is a similar provision. Section 7 of the Charter includes a related principle, prohibiting grossly disproportionate limitations of the right to life, liberty and security of the person (Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72 at paragraphs 120-122). Note, however, that with respect to criminal sentencing, the gross disproportionality standard in section 7 is the same as it is under section 12. In other words, the section 7 principle against gross disproportionality would not give rise to a constitutional remedy against a criminal sentence if that sentence is in accordance with section 12 (R. v. Malmo-Levine, R. v. Caine,  3 S.C.R. 571 at paragraph 160; R. v. Safarzadeh-Markhali, 2016 SCC 14 at paragraph 72).
There are similar or related rights in the following international instruments binding on Canada: articles 7, 8, 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; articles 1, 2, 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; article 15 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; and article XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. See also articles 7, 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
See also the following international, regional and comparative law instruments that are not legally binding upon Canada but include similar provisions: articles 5, 6, 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights; the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; articles 3, 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights; the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and the 8th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
For section 12 to be engaged, the impugned measure must be a “treatment or punishment” by a Canadian state actor. If so, the question is whether the treatment or punishment is “cruel and unusual”, and therefore a violation of section 12 (Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General),  3 S.C.R. 519 at 608-609; Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 4 at paragraph 47).
The Supreme Court has not articulated a general definition for either “treatment” or “punishment”, at least in the context of section 12.
However, the meaning of “punishment” has been defined in the context of sections 11(h) and 11(i) of the Charter (see R. v. K.R.J., 2016 SCC 31). The section 11 case law could be referred to in seeking to determine whether a measure falls under section 12, but note that it is conceivable that the term “punishment” may have a different meaning under sections 11 and 12.
Whatever the precise meaning of “punishment” under section 12, the term “treatment” extends the application of section 12 beyond measures that amount to “punishment” (Rodgers, supra at paragraph 63). The Supreme Court has noted the broad dictionary definition of “treatment” as “a process or manner of behaving towards or dealing with a person or thing...” (Chiarelli v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration),  1 S.C.R. 711 at paragraph 29). The Supreme Court has left open the possibility that “treatment” may include measures imposed by the state outside of the penal or quasi-penal context. However, the mere legal prohibition of certain conduct does not constitute treatment under section 12. According to the Supreme Court, “there must be some more active state process in operation, involving an exercise of state control over the individual, in order for the state action in question, whether it be positive action, inaction or prohibition, to constitute ‘treatment’ under section 12 (Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), supra, at 610).
A term of imprisonment, imposed as a penalty for an offence, is a punishment (Smith, supra at 1077; R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15).
A monetary fine, imposed as a penalty for an offence, is a punishment (R. v. Pham (2002), 167 C.C.C. (3d) 570 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Desjardins (1996), 182 N.B.R. (2nd) 321 (N.B.C.A.); R. v. Lambe, 2000 NFCA 23).
Detention for non-punitive reasons is a treatment — including the detention of permanent residents and foreign nationals for immigration-related reasons, as authorized under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9 at paragraphs 95-98).
Transfer of an inmate to administrative or disciplinary segregation is a treatment or punishment (R. v. Marriott, 2014 NSCA 28 at paragraphs 34-46, application for leave to appeal to SCC dismissed, 2015 CanLII 8564; Bacon v. Surrey Pretrial Services Centre (Warden), 2010 BCSC 805; R. v. Olson (1987), 62 O.R. (2d) 321 (C.A.)).
Other conditions of detention are also considered “treatment”, including lockdowns in remand facilities, and the overall conditions in pre-trial detention and immigration detention (Ogiamien v Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2017 ONCA 667 at paragraph 7; Trang v. Alberta (Edmonton Remand Centre), 2010 ABQB 6; R. v. Munoz, 2006 ABQB 901).
A prohibition on the possession of firearms by convicted drug offenders is a punishment. Although its purpose is primarily preventive, it “may have some punitive effect on the offender” (R. v. Wiles,  3 S.C.R. 895 at paragraph 3).
The mandatory forfeiture of firearms involved in offences is a treatment or punishment, at least when it is imposed as a consequence of criminal conviction (R. v. Montague, 2014 ONCA 439 at paragraph 39, application for leave to appeal to SCC rejected, 20 November 2014).
The taking of a DNA sample, at least where ordered as a consequence of conviction, is a treatment (Rodgers, supra at paragraph 63).
Removal or deportation of a foreign national from Canada is not a punishment, but the Supreme Court has left open the possibility that removal may amount to “treatment” that engages section 12 (Chiarelli, supra at 735).
Similarly, extradition from Canada is not a punishment. The foreseeable treatment or punishment of the individual by the foreign state, post-extradition, is too causally remote from actions by Canadian officials to be considered under section 12. Rather, it should be considered under section 7 (United States v. Burns,  1 S.C.R 283 at paragraphs 50-57; Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice,  2 S.C.R. 779; Reference Re Ng Extradition (Can.),  2 S.C.R. 858).
The Supreme Court has left open the question of whether an administrative suspension of a licence is punishment (Harvey v. New Brunswick (Attorney General),  2 S.C.R. 876 at paragraph 34). Lower courts have answered this question in the negative (R. v. Miller (1998), 65 O.R. (2d) 746 (Ont C.A.); Arsenault v. Charlottetown (City),  P.E.I.J. No. 28 (P.E.I.S.C. T.D.) (QL).
Appeal courts have considered whether the victim surcharge — a monetary penalty imposed on offenders in addition to any other penalty, which provides funding for victim services — is a “treatment or punishment”. In Quebec, it was treated as a punishment (Boudreault c. R., 2016 QCCA 1907). In Ontario, it was considered a treatment, although the issue of whether it is also a punishment was left undecided (R. v. Tinker, 2017 ONCA 552, at paragraphs 123-125). At the time of this update, the Supreme Court had reserved judgment in appeals of these matters.
In one recent decision, the Federal Court took an exceptionally expansive approach to the term “treatment” (Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 651). The Court held that the withdrawal or limitation of health care funding for certain refugee claimants engaged section 12, because these individuals “are under immigration jurisdiction, and as such are effectively under the administrative control of the state”: for example, through immigration detention, conditions of release, and limitations on their ability to work or receive social assistance benefits (ibid. at paragraph 585). The Court limited its holding to “the unusual circumstances of this case” (ibid. at paragraph 610).
If a measure engages section 12, the next question is whether it is “cruel and unusual”.
This is a high threshold. To be cruel and unusual the treatment or punishment must be “grossly disproportionate”: in other words, “so excessive as to outrage [our] standards of decency”, and be “abhorrent or intolerable to society”. The threshold is not met by treatment or punishment that is “merely excessive” or disproportionate (Smith, supra, at 1072; Wiles, supra, at paragraph 4; Charkaoui, supra, at paragraph 95; Nur, supra, at paragraph 39; Morrisey, supra, at paragraph 26; R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6 at paragraph 14; R. v. Malmo-Levine, supra, at paragraph 159; R. v. Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13 at paragraph 24; R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64 at paragraph 52).
Note that the phrase “cruel and unusual” is a “statement of a compendious norm”, one that is meant to be flexible, context-specific, and linked to reasonable or objective community standards. It can be expected that the protection of section 12 will evolve over time (Smith, supra).
Torture is “blatantly contrary to section 12” (Kazemi Estate v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 2014 SCC 62 at paragraph 52; Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1 at paragraph 51). For the generally agreed-upon definition of “torture”, see section 269.1 of the Criminal Code and Article 1 of the Convention against Torture.
“The infliction of corporal punishment, such as the lash, irrespective of the number of lashes imposed, or … the lobotomisation of certain dangerous offenders or the castration of sexual offenders” (Smith, supra at 1073).
The Supreme Court has never had to decide whether capital punishment imposed directly by the Canadian government would be contrary to section 12. However, the Court has indicated that because the death penalty is “irreversible” and “its implementation necessarily causes psychological and physical suffering”, it “engages the underlying values of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment” (Burns, supra at paragraph 78).
It is no simple task to demonstrate that the duration of a criminal sentence unjustifiably limits section 12: “the test is not one which is quick to invalidate sentences crafted by legislators” (R. v. Goltz,  3 S.C.R. 485 at 501; R. v. Latimer, 2001 SCC 1 at paragraphs 75-77)”. The Supreme Court has given Parliament substantial latitude in developing a rational sentencing scheme and advancing its stated penal objectives. It is within the purview of Parliament to emphasize certain sentencing objectives, such as punishment, deterrence and denunciation, over other sentencing principles, such as rehabilitation (Morrisey, supra).
In evaluating whether a criminal sentence is a “cruel and unusual punishment” the core question is whether the sentence is “grossly disproportionate to the sentence that is appropriate, having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the offender” (Nur, supra at paragraph 39, citing Smith, supra at 1073; Lloyd, supra at paragraphs 22-23).
Comparison with punishments for similar crimes in other jurisdictions (See Smith, supra at page 1073-1074; R. v. Lyons,  2 S.C.R. 309 at 337; Goltz, supra at 499-500; Latimer, supra at paragraphs 73-78; Morrisey, supra at 108-109).
A sentencing provision that establishes a high maximum penalty, but no mandatory minimum, will not itself limit section 12. While it is possible that an individual sentence imposed by a judge under a sentencing provision that allows for a high maximum sentence would be grossly disproportionate, this is a matter of error that can be corrected on appeal of the individual sentence. The validity of the underlying sentencing provision would not be in question (Smith, supra at paragraph 67; R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v Caine, supra at paragraph 158).
On the other hand, mandatory minimum sentencing provisions can raise issues of gross disproportionality, because they have the potential to require departures from the general principle of proportionality in sentencing. However, such provisions are not inherently contrary to section 12 (Smith, supra; Nur, supra at paragraphs 44-46).Each mandatory minimum sentencing provision must be assessed on its own merits in light of the gross disproportionality standard. As the Supreme Court has observed, “the wider the range of conduct and circumstances caught by the mandatory minimum, the more likely it is that the mandatory minimum will apply to offenders for whom the sentence would be grossly disproportionate” (Lloyd, supra at paragraphs 3, 24, 35).
“The court must ask whether the mandatory minimum requires the judge to impose a sentence that is grossly disproportionate to the fit and proportionate sentence” , either on the individual before the court, or on other individuals in reasonably foreseeable circumstances (Nur, supra at paragraphs 46, 77; Lloyd, supra at paragraphs 22-23).
Courts should stay “grounded in judicial experience and common sense”, and may wish to begin the analysis by reviewing the circumstances described in reported case law (Nur, supra, at paragraph 62).
However, the analysis is not limited to “situations that are likely to arise in the general day-to-day application of the law”. It should include “circumstances that are foreseeably captured by the minimum conduct caught by the offence”, excluding only far-fetched, “fanciful or remote situations” (Nur, supra, at paragraph 68; Goltz, supra at 506).
If a situation has arisen in the case law, no matter how marginal or exceptional it may appear, then it must be considered. According to the Supreme Court, “reported cases illustrate the range of real-life conduct captured by the offence. I see no principled reason to exclude them on the basis that they represent an uncommon application of the offence, provided that the relevant facts are sufficiently reported” (Nur, supra at paragraph 72).
The personal characteristics of offenders who may be subject to a mandatory minimum may be considered, subject to some limitations: “the inquiry into reasonably foreseeable situations the law may capture may take into account personal characteristics relevant to people who may be caught by the mandatory minimum, but must avoid characteristics that would produce remote or far-fetched examples” (Nur, supra at paragraph 76).
The Crown’s ability to proceed summarily in relation to a hybrid offence does not “save” what is otherwise a grossly disproportionate mandatory minimum for indictable offences. If the Crown is procedurally allowed to elect that an offence should be prosecuted by indictment, and thus be subject to a problematic mandatory minimum, that is sufficient for the purpose of the section 12 analysis. Because of the high standard for judicial review of prosecutorial discretion (“abuse of process”, rather than reasonableness), it would be inappropriate to have the constitutionality of a statutory provision rest on the expectation that the Crown will always act properly (Nur, supra at paragraphs 85-97).
The possibility of parole should not be considered in assessing the impact of a mandatory minimum sentence on offenders. Parole is a statutory privilege rather than a right; the parole board’s role is to ensure the offender is safely released into the community, not to ensure the proportionality of the sentence (Nur, supra at paragraph 98).
a mandatory minimum of 1 year imprisonment for possessing controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking (Lloyd, supra).
a mandatory minimum of 4 years imprisonment, for unlawful act manslaughter (Ferguson, supra).
Detaining an individual is not an inherently “cruel and unusual” treatment or punishment: “It is not the detention itself, or even its length, that is objectionable. Detention itself is never pleasant, but it is only cruel and unusual in the legal sense if it violates accepted norms of treatment” (Charkaoui, supra at paragraph 96; Jaballah v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 299 at paragraph 56).
Detention that is for an extended period and of an uncertain duration (i.e., no defined end date) is not necessarily cruel and unusual, but it may be if the individual is denied a meaningful opportunity to challenge the continued detention. In the context of immigration detention, section 12 requires that an extended period of detention be “accompanied by a meaningful process of ongoing review that takes into account the context and circumstances of the individual case”, which affords the individual regular and “meaningful opportunities to challenge their continued detention” (Charkaoui, supra, at paragraphs 107, 110; see e.g. Brown v. Canada (Public Safety), 2018 ONCA 14 at paras. 40-48, leave to appeal to SCC denied, 1 November 2018; Brown v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 710 at paras. 153-157).
Similarly, in the criminal context, the Criminal Code’s “dangerous offender” regime does not unjustifiably limit section 12 of the Charter, because sentencing judge retains discretion under the statutory provisions to apply the relevant principles and objectives of sentencing, in order to impose a fit sentence in the circumstances of the particular offender (Boutilier, supra at paragraphs 48-71). Where the sentencing judge decides to impose an indeterminate sentence on a dangerous offender, the regime allows for periodic review of the individual’s circumstances by the parole board (Lyons, supra at 341). Where, however, the review is not properly conducted, the punishment may become "cruel and unusual" (Steele v. Mountain Institution,  2 S.C.R. 1385).
R. v. Munoz, 2006 ABQB 901: no violation of section 12 arising from relatively brief periods in RCMP lock-up, an extended period in a crowded and restrictive remand facility, or extended periods in administrative and disciplinary segregation.
Segregation of an inmate is not necessarily contrary to section 12. However, it may be cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in certain instances, if it is so excessive as to outrage standards of decency. There must be adequate safeguards before such a measure can be undertaken. The inmate must be observed and his or her health protected. Moreover, the segregation must be for a valid purpose (Olson, supra, aff'd without reference to this point, S.C.C.; Marriott, supra, at paragraphs 34-46; Corporation of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2017 ONSC 7491 at paragraphs 191-271, currently under appeal; British Columbia Civil Liberties Association v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 BCSC 62 at paragraphs 525-534, currently under appeal; Bacon, supra).
It is not necessarily cruel and unusual to detain an accused person awaiting trial in conditions that are similar to those for individuals who have been convicted and are serving a sentence of imprisonment. So long as the conditions do not "outrage standards of decency", in light of all the circumstances, section 12 is not limited by this sort of treatment. (Sanchez v. Superintendent of the Metropolitan Toronto West Detention Centre (1996), 34 C.R.R. (2d) 368 (Ont. C.A.)).
A ban on smoking in a correctional facility is a part of the prisoner’s "treatment", but it is generally not “cruel and unusual” (see Regina Correctional Centre v. Saskatchewan (Department of Justice),  S.J. No. 350 at paragraphs 10-13 (Q.B.) (QL), followed in Saskatoon Correctional Centre Inmate Committee v. Saskatchewan, 2000 SKQB 204 at paragraphs 32-33; McNeill v. Ontario (Ministry of the Attorney General & Correctional Service),  O.J. No. 2288 at paragraphs 19-25(Ont. Gen. Div.) (QL); for an exceptional case involving a new smoking ban imposed with little notice, see McCann v. Fraser Regional Correctional Centre,  B.C.J. No. 559 (S.C.)).
Given the high standard to find a violation of section 12, appellate rulings have suggested that even if punishment or treatment with a purely monetary impact might in some circumstances be “cruel and unusual”, those circumstances are likely to be exceptional (see, e.g., Turner v. Manitoba,  3 W.W.R. 601 (Man C.A.); Lambe, supra).
Generally, minimum fine provisions do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment (Desjardins, supra; Pham, supra; R. v. Zachary, A.Q. No. 2970 (Que. C.A.) (QL); R. v. MacFarlane, P.E.I.J. No. 116 (P.E.I. C.A.) (QL)). Appellate courts have held that the inability to pay the fine is immaterial or of little weight to the analysis of whether the fine constituted cruel and unusual punishment. (Desjardins, supra; Pham, supra at paragraph 17) Note that certain Criminal Code provisions attenuate the impact of minimum fines. Section 734.3 of the Criminal Code permits an offender to apply for an extension of time to pay a fine beyond the period imposed by the trial judge. Moreover, section 734.7 of the Code provides certain safeguards where imprisonment is to be applied in default of fine payment (e.g., issuing a warrant for committal only where the offender has refused to pay the fine without reasonable excuse).
There have been a number of challenges under section 12 to the victim surcharge, a monetary fine that is mandatorily imposed under section 743 of the Criminal Code. At the time of this update, the Supreme Court had reserved judgment in several appeals on this matter from Ontario and Quebec courts. The decisions currently under appeal upheld the surcharge, for reasons including the following: courts have flexibility in granting reasonable extensions of time to pay, a defaulting offender cannot be imprisoned if he or she lacks the means to pay, and courts can consider the mandatory surcharge amount in tailoring a just and appropriate overall sentence (Boudreault, supra; Tinker, supra).
The mandatory imposition of a three month driving prohibition in the circumstances of the individual offender in this case constituted cruel and unusual punishment because he would have lost his job as a result of the mandatory imposition of the prohibition (R. v. Berg,  Y.J. No. 71 (Y.T.S.C.) (QL) at paragraph 20).
A mandatory weapons prohibition under paragraph 109(1)(c) of the Criminal Code does not limit section 12. It relates to recognized sentencing goals of protecting the public, and pursues a legitimate state interest in reducing the misuse of weapons. It does not have a grossly disproportionate effect having regard to any reasonable hypothetical, given the ameliorative provision found in section 113 of the Criminal Code which permits the court to lift the order for sustenance or employment reasons (Wiles, supra, at paragraphs 3, 9-10). In relation to a mandatory weapons prohibition under paragraph 109(1)(b), see the brief reasons upholding that provision in Dufour c. R., 2017 QCCA 536 at paragraphs 5-6.
Similarly, even though the mandatory forfeiture of firearms involved in offences is a treatment or punishment, it is not contrary to section 12. This measure does not have particularly onerous consequences on the offender, and it applies to offences with some gravity. It advances sentencing principles of general and specific deterrence, for the legitimate purpose of addressing gun crime that involves illegally held firearms (Montague, supra, at paragraphs 39-62).
As noted above, removal or deportation of a foreign national from Canada is not a punishment, but the Supreme Court has left open the possibility that removal may amount to “treatment” that engages section 12 (Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Chiarelli,  1 S.C.R. 711 at 735).
But even if it engages section 12, removal or deportation does not, in and of itself, constitute “cruel and unusual” treatment contrary to section 12 (Chiarelli, supra at 735-736; Solis v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 186 D.L.R. (4th) 512 (Fed. C.A.) at paragraph 11, application for leave to appeal dismissed,  S.C.C.A. No. 249; Canepa v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1992), 93 DLR (4th) 589 (Fed. C.A.); Revell v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 905 at paragraphs 219-226).
For example, the Supreme Court has held that it is not cruel and unusual to deport “a permanent resident who has deliberately violated an essential condition of his or her being permitted to remain in Canada by committing a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment of five years or more” (Chiarelli, supra at 736).
Where an individual is challenging their removal or extradition from Canada on the basis of risks faced in the foreign state, section 12 is generally not the most relevant Charter right. It is more appropriate to consider the Charter implications under section 7 of the Charter, which is more flexible and context-dependent. The values represented by section 12 play an important role in defining the section 7 principles of fundamental justice that apply to removals and extraditions (see, e.g., Burns, supra, at paragraph 57, “the values underlying various sections of the Charter, including s. 12, form part of the balancing process engaged in under s. 7”; Suresh, supra, at paragraphs 51-58).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.