|
Charter - s.7 Vagueness. 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 'vagueness':[148] Despite advancing arguments based on legal uncertainty, the appellants did not challenge the constitutionality of the impugned provisions on the basis of vagueness, a recognized principle of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter. A vague provision for the purposes of s. 7 is one that “does not provide an adequate basis for legal debate” or is “not intelligible”, in the sense that it does “does not sufficiently delineate any area of risk, and thus can provide neither fair notice to the citizen nor a limitation of enforcement discretion” (R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, 1992 CanLII 72 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606, at pp. 639-40; Wakeling v. United States of America, 2014 SCC 72, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 549, at para. 62; Hogg and Wright, at §§ 47:27-47:28; Brun, Tremblay and Brouillet, at para. XII-6.64). No such argument was advanced here.
|
