R V. Frieson Case Study

In R v. Frieson, Judge Ouellette referred to 5 cases and 2 statutes outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 2 statutes from the Constitution Act, and 12 statues from the Criminal Code. The issue with this particular case laid in the fact that Frieson believed the imposition of a three-year mandatory minimum sentence for this offence constituted as cruel and unusual punishment; the defendant was not aware of Mr. Froese’s depression when he sold him both firearms. Despite only having a license to sell non-prohibited firearm ammunition at the time, Friesen cooperated with investigators and was honest about continuing to sell firearms from his store despite not having a license, even after Mr. Froese’s death. Judge Oulette was

Frieson?.

For the first issue, “Does the three-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, set out in section 99(2), violate section 12 of the Charter?”, Judge Oullette differentiated between the intended purpose behind Parliament’s mandatory minimum sentencing and the sentencing objectives. Bill C-10 was created in order to place a stop to handguns, drug trafficking, and gang violence. The facts pertaining to this case do not deal with these issues, and thus the concern falls on Freisen not having a license to sell firearms. Judge Ouellette determined the Froese did not intend to commit a criminal or illegal act with the gun, and found the three-year mandatory minimum is unconstitutional. For the second issue, “if it does, should this Court declare that section null and void under section 52 of the Constitution Act 1982?”, Judge Ouellette decided to adopt the reasoning in the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Nur. Both subsections 95 and 99 have the same purpose which is to target criminal and illegal activities related to gun and street violence. Therefore, he decided that