2024 SCC 35 – R. v. Archambault

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Criminal law — Preliminary inquiry — Right to preliminary inquiry

Legislation — Interpretation — Legislative amendment

(00:00:40) Summary

(00:35:28) Joint Reasons: Côté and Rowe JJ.

(00:35:33) I. Overview – 1

(00:39:03) II. Factual Background and Judicial History – 7

(00:40:37) III. Legislative Background on the Preliminary Inquiry – 11

(00:50:44) IV. Analysis – 22

(00:51:42) A. The Legislative Amendment Does Not Eliminate the Right to a Preliminary Inquiry for Accused Persons Charged Before It Came Into Force – 24

(00:51:51) (1) Principles of Transitional Law Applicable in This Case – 24

(00:58:00) (2) The Abolition of the Preliminary Inquiry for Certain Offences Is Procedural in Nature but Affects a Substantive Right – 33

(01:04:56) (3) The Right to a Preliminary Inquiry Vests at the Time Charges Are Laid – 43

(01:18:09) B. An Accused Whose Alleged Offence, or Its Equivalent, Is Punishable by 14 Years or More of Imprisonment Has the Right to a Preliminary Inquiry – 59

(01:19:38) (1) Parliament Intended the Right to a Preliminary Inquiry To Be Tied to the Seriousness of the Offence – 62

(01:31:45) (2) An Accused’s Right to the Benefit of the Lesser Punishment Does Not Affect the Determination of the Right to a Preliminary Inquiry – 74

(01:35:02) (3) Application to the Facts – 78

(01:36:13) V. Conclusion – 80

(01:36:18) Concurring Reasons: Kasirer J. (Jamal J. concurring)

(01:51:49) Concurring Reasons: Martin J.

(01:51:53) I. Overview – 99

(01:56:38) II. Analysis – 106

(01:56:40) A. The New Section 535 of the Code Impacts Substantive Rights – 106

(02:02:52) B. The Proper Interpretive Approach for Legislation That Affects Substantive Rights – 115

(02:06:42) (1) Either Substantive or Vested Rights Will Trigger the Presumption Against Retrospectivity – 121

(02:15:35) (2) If the Accused’s Substantive Rights Are Affected, the Date of the Offence Should Govern – 132

(02:26:47) C. Summary – 144

(02:28:26) III. Disposition – 147

(02:28:30) Dissenting Reasons: Karakatsanis J. (Wagner C.J. and O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ. concurring)

(02:28:39) I. Overview – 148

(02:36:40) II. Background – 161

(02:38:14) III. Decisions Below – 166

(02:38:17) A. Court of Québec – 166

(02:39:15) B. Superior Court of Quebec – 168

(02:41:17) C. Court of Appeal of Quebec – 171

(02:42:50) IV. Issues – 174

(02:44:34) V. Analysis – 176

(02:44:37) A. The History and Availability of Preliminary Inquiries – 176

(02:49:24) B. Determining Whether the New Rule Applies – 186

(02:51:19) (1) Principles Governing the Temporal Application of Legislation – 190

(02:56:37) (a) The Presumptions of Temporal Application – 203

(03:03:07) (b) The Combined Effect of the Presumptions – 210

(03:09:15) (c) The Substantive Threshold – 219

(03:13:03) (d) The Vesting Threshold – 224

(03:17:14) (e) Conclusion on the Applicable Principles – 230

(03:19:01) (2) The Temporal Application of Section 535 – 234

(03:22:49) (a) Can the Limitation on the Right to a Preliminary Inquiry Impact a Substantive Legal Interest? – 241

(03:27:52) (b) When Does the Right to a Preliminary I