Canadian Lawyer

16 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal. Justice Thomas Crom- well delivered the unanimous judgment. "The record at trial contains evidence upon which horse racing, in the present circumstances, could be found to involve a systematic resort to chance. There was evidence that post position is determined by a computerized random post posi- tion generator and that certain post posi- tions are more advantageous than oth- ers." Question: How much time do judges spend at the track? Dust-up over sentencing: R. v. Lacasse Tommy Lacasse pleaded guilty to two counts of impaired driving causing death and was sentenced by the trial judge to six and a half years in jail. The Quebec Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to four years, largely on the grounds that the trial judge had departed from the accepted sen- tencing range and had imposed a sentence that was not proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsi- bility of the offender. The Supreme Court restored the trial judge's sentence. Justice Richard Wagner, the senior Quebec judge, in a judgment highly criti- cal of the Court of Appeal and display- ing impatience with his own court's dis- senting judgment, wrote that the sen- tence imposed by the trial judge was not demonstrably unfit and it was not open to the Court of Appeal to intervene and substitute its own assessment. Justice Clément Gascon, another Que- bec judge, with Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin in agreement, dissented in a pointed fashion (e.g., "I note that my col- league seems to detect a certain absolute- ness in my words that is quite simply not there. . . .") Question: Are the judges from Quebec not getting along? Cromwell and Abella knock heads: M.M. v. United States of America The United States sought the extradition of M.M. to face charges in the state of Georgia that she had abducted her three children from the father who had been granted custody. M argued she would have a good defence if prosecuted in Canada, that there was no comparable defence in Georgia, and that extraditing her would be contrary to the best interests of her children. She sought admission of exculpatory evidence showing the chil- dren had run away from their abusive father without her help and that she sub- sequently harboured them for their own protection. If this were so, her behaviour would not have been criminal if it had occurred in Canada, and so the so-called "double criminality" requirement for he big think. Pontificating about the Supreme Court of Canada in a vague and general way. Discussing blockbuster cases — Senate reform, assisted suicide, all that. Great fun! But what about the nitty-gritty, the court's day-to-day work, its bread and butter? Here is a snapshot of four recent judgments, all from last December. They didn't attract much attention, but maybe they can tell us something. Off track: R. v. Riesberry Derek Riesberry tried to rig horse races. He was charged under the Criminal Code with cheating while playing a game. But is a horse race a "game?" The Criminal Code defines "game" as "a game of chance or mixed chance and skill." The trial judge said a horse race was pure skill and therefore not a game. The Ontario Court of Appeal knew better: It set aside Riesberry's acquittal and ordered a new trial. T O P C O U RT TA L E S O P I N I O N @philipslayton HUAN TRAN The nitty-gritty Four recent SCC judgments that didn't attract much attention may still tell us something about the court's day-to-day. By Philip Slayton T

• Cover