29:
222:
hearing the judge denied his release and ordered him to be detained until the trial. The detention was based on section 515 of the Code which allowed detention where it "is necessary in the public interest or for the protection or safety of the public, having regard to all the circumstances including
263:
and authorized detention without "just cause". On the justification analysis under section 1, he found that the provision was not rationally connected to its purpose as it allowed pre-trial detention where it was not related to the objective. It also failed to be minimally impairing, as it permitted
226:
Morales applied for a review of the judge's order. He was granted release with conditions. The release was appealed to the
Supreme Court of Canada. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the "public interest" component of section 515 violated
204:
Decision maker Maximo
Morales was being investigated in his participation in a cocaine importation ring in Canada. He was arrested in December 1990 and charged with trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking under the
258:
Lamer examined the phrase "in the public interest" and found that it was vague and imprecise, and so could not be used to frame a legal debate that could produce a structured rule. Thus, the phrase violated the
183:
154:
228:
232:
240:
193:
314:
251:
Chief
Justice Lamer, for the majority, found that the "public interest" component violated the accused right not to be denied reasonable bail under section 11(e) of the
329:
299:
188:
319:
273:
324:
192:, the right not to be denied reasonable bail, as it authorized detention on vague and imprecise grounds, and could not be saved by
223:
any substantial likelihood that the accused will ... commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice".
255:
and could not be saved under section 1. He ordered the words "in the public interest" be declared of no force or effect.
97:
264:
more detentions than necessary, and it was not proportional, as the deleterious effect outweighed the objective.
73:
For
Morales. The words "in the public interest" under section 515 of the Code be declared of no force or effect.
286:
173:
34:
294:
178:
207:
28:
176:. The Court found that the "public interest" basis for pre-trial detention under section 515 of the
290:
260:
93:
113:
105:
117:
334:
308:
121:
86:
60:
101:
158:
109:
136:
Lamer J., joined by La Forest, Sopinka, McLachlin and
Iacobucci JJ.
219:
148:
140:
132:
127:
77:
69:
59:
49:
42:
21:
315:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms case law
239:, and if so, whether it could be saved under
8:
161:, 1 S.C.R. 103; R. v. Hufsky, 1 S.C.R. 621
172:, 3 S.C.R. 711, is a case decided by the
144:Gonthier J., joined by L'Heureux-Dube J.
189:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
54:Her Majesty The Queen v Maximo Morales
18:
274:List of Supreme Court of Canada cases
7:
330:Canadian criminal procedure case law
157:; R. v. Pearson, 3 S.C.R. 000;
14:
300:case summary at mapleleafweb.com
27:
1:
320:Supreme Court of Canada cases
16:Supreme Court of Canada case
45:Judgment: November 19, 1992
351:
325:1992 in Canadian case law
153:
82:
26:
235:, 11(d) or 11(e) of the
287:Supreme Court of Canada
174:Supreme Court of Canada
35:Supreme Court of Canada
155:Section 11(e), Charter
43:Hearing: May 28, 1992
261:doctrine of vagueness
208:Narcotics Control Act
98:Claire L'Heureux-Dubé
247:Opinion of the Court
114:Beverley McLachlin
165:
164:
342:
106:Charles Gonthier
94:GĂ©rard La Forest
91:Puisne Justices:
78:Court membership
31:
19:
350:
349:
345:
344:
343:
341:
340:
339:
305:
304:
282:
270:
249:
202:
118:Frank Iacobucci
89:
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
348:
346:
338:
337:
332:
327:
322:
317:
307:
306:
303:
302:
297:
281:
280:External links
278:
277:
276:
269:
266:
248:
245:
201:
198:
163:
162:
151:
150:
146:
145:
142:
138:
137:
134:
130:
129:
125:
124:
84:Chief Justice:
80:
79:
75:
74:
71:
67:
66:
63:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
347:
336:
333:
331:
328:
326:
323:
321:
318:
316:
313:
312:
310:
301:
298:
296:
292:
288:
285:Full text of
284:
283:
279:
275:
272:
271:
267:
265:
262:
256:
254:
246:
244:
242:
238:
234:
230:
224:
221:
216:
214:
213:Criminal Code
210:
209:
199:
197:
195:
191:
190:
185:
184:section 11(e)
181:
180:
179:Criminal Code
175:
171:
170:
160:
156:
152:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
128:Reasons given
126:
123:
122:John C. Major
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
92:
88:
87:Antonio Lamer
85:
81:
76:
72:
68:
64:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
289:decision at
257:
252:
250:
236:
225:
217:
212:
206:
203:
187:
177:
168:
167:
166:
149:Laws applied
102:John Sopinka
90:
83:
65:3 S.C.R. 711
53:
33:
169:R v Morales
159:R. v. Oakes
141:Concurrence
22:R v Morales
309:Categories
293: and
229:sections 7
200:Background
110:Peter Cory
241:section 1
194:section 1
182:violated
61:Citations
268:See also
133:Majority
253:Charter
237:Charter
218:At his
186:of the
295:CanLII
70:Ruling
291:LexUM
335:Bail
220:bail
211:and
215:.
311::
243:.
231:,
196:.
120:,
116:,
112:,
108:,
104:,
100:,
96:,
233:9
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
