Majority
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
Lamer C.J.
Lamer C.J. ‑‑ Mrs. Duckett, I will depart from our usual practice, to say how much we appreciated your advocacy. Nevertheless, we are all of the view that this appeal fails, substantially for the reasons set forth by the Court of Appeal.
This case does not come within the principle in R. v. Gamble, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 595, where the accused was convicted and sentenced under the wrong law. The detention of the appellant in this case is lawful as a result of a transitional provision, the validity and constitutionality of which were not attacked and could not be attacked because that would have resulted in a retrospective application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Royal, McCrum, Duckett & Glancy, Edmonton.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa.
Cases cited
- R. v. Gamble 20433-1988-12-08