|
Criminal - Nature of Criminal Law. R. v. J.B.
In R. v. J.B. (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a criminal appeal, here brought against convictions on "two counts of sexual exploitation" and some other sex charges.
Here the court waxes large on the relationship between criminal law and morality, and the need for certainty as to what just is criminal:[58] It is important in a case of this nature to distinguish between general morality and the criminal law. The criminal law does not exist to criminalize immorality: R. v. Mabior, 2012 SCC 47, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 584, at para. 23. Although the two will frequently overlap, there are situations where the criminal law does not track with precision contraventions of societal moral norms.
[59] Here, there is no question that many would consider the appellant’s conduct worthy of moral condemnation. Even the appellant, through counsel on appeal, is prepared to acknowledge, in hindsight, that his conduct in relation to M.D. and S.H. is worthy of societal condemnation – a man in his mid-30’s having sexual relations with 16- and 17-year-old high school students. The question, though, is not whether he engaged in morally offensive conduct, a question that most would find easy to answer here. Rather, the question is whether he engaged in criminal conduct.
[60] In answering that essential question, it is critical to bear in mind that the criminal law insists not only upon restraint, but also upon certainty, predictability and fair notice. There must always remain a clear and ascertainable line between criminal and non-criminal conduct: R. v. Cuerrier, 1998 CanLII 796 (SCC), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 371, at paras. 69 and 135; R. v. Hutchinson, 2014 SCC 19, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 346, at para. 42. Quite simply, the stakes are high, and people need to know where the line is so that they have a chance of knowing when they are about to cross it.
|
