R v Smith

Smith struck down the mandatory seven-year minimum for importing any narcotic in any quantity under the Narcotic Control Act. The minimum was grossly disproportionate when applied to a hypothetical reasonable-case offender — a college student smuggling a single joint across the border would face seven years.

Smith pleaded guilty to importing 7.5 ounces of cocaine and faced the mandatory minimum.

Does the mandatory seven-year minimum for importing any narcotic violate s.12 of the Charter?

Yes. Provision struck down.

A punishment is "cruel and unusual" within s.12 if it is so excessive as to outrage standards of decency, including being grossly disproportionate to what would have been appropriate. The analysis considers reasonable hypothetical applications, not just the case before the court.

Lamer J held that the test is grossly-disproportionate gravity. The reasonable-hypothetical analysis is essential because Parliament passes laws of general application; a minimum that is cruel in some applications cannot stand. The Narcotic Control Act minimum captured cases ranging from major importation to personal use across an international border. The mandatory seven years for the latter would shock the conscience.

Founding case for s.12 mandatory-minimum analysis. Reasonable-hypothetical methodology has since been refined and partly limited (Nur 2015, Lloyd 2016, Hilbach 2023). Mandatory minimums for firearm offences, drug offences and child sexual offences continue to face s.12 challenge under this framework.

R v Smith, [1987] 1 SCR 1045, 1987 CanLII 64 (SCC).

Dickson CJ, Beetz J, Estey J, McIntyre J, Lamer J, Wilson J, Le Dain J, La Forest J