Library of Parliament Analysis of Mandatory Minimum Sentences and on Anti–Money Laundering Rules

The Library of Parliament this week published two (2) posts on its HillNotes blog that refer to recent Supreme Court of Canada cases:

• Mandatory Minimum Sentences and Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: "On 14 April 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R. v. Nur, a case that challenged the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences for the possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition. In a split 6–3 decision, the Court found that the required sentences of imprisonment for three years for a first offence and five years for a second or subsequent offence violated section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the protection against cruel and unusual punishment. This case offers an important perspective on how the Supreme Court will consider future cases regarding the mandatory minimum sentences adopted by Parliament."
• Canada’s Anti–Money Laundering and Anti–Terrorist Financing Regime: The Legal Profession’s Obligations: "On 13 February 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that certain provisions of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act that impose obligations on lawyers violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The decision, in Canada (Attorney General) v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada, confirmed that legislation cannot enforce obligations on lawyers that would undermine solicitor–client privilege. In exempting lawyers from the Act, Canada – like the United States and Australia – is among the few Financial Action Task Force members that do not impose obligations on lawyers as part of their anti–money laundering and anti–terrorist financing regime. According to the Task Force, criminals may use lawyers to facilitate illegal financial transactions, particularly when they are acting as financial intermediaries."