The case name is RV Lucas who was decided in 1998 by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Case Name, Year and Court
The case name is RV Lucas who was decided in 1998 by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Relevant Facts
Three children were suspected of sexual abuse, and the police officer was investigating the case. The children were taken to exclusive care homes, and later the police officer was informed that the children were sexually active with each other, where it had reached a point where the caregivers were unable to control the issue. Four individuals who were charged and were looking for ways to terminate their allegations contacted Mr. Lucas and provided him with documents regarding their case. Mr. Lucas read and understood the information in the report and concluded that the officer knew about the issue and had to give answers regarding it. Mr. Lucas, too his wife and made her carry the placard that contained a message. A small group and the appellants gathered outside the provisional court where the officer worked. Mrs. Lucas took a sign on his hand which read; did (the officer) allow the rape of an eight-year-old? And on the other side read; if you admit it (police officer), you will get help with the problem. Mr. and Mrs. Lucas were charged under ss. 300, and 301.
Legal Issues
The legal issues that were raised included if ss. 298,299, and 300 of the code violates s. 2b and section 7 of the charter, or if any of them can be upheld to s. 1 of the letter? Also, the legal issue that was raised was to seek to prove whether there was sufficient or insufficient evidence on the appellant case and if the court judged incorrectly.
Lower Court Decisions
At the court, the code of ethics should be upheld, and according to Mr. Lucas’s Appeal, there was no evidence that the message carried by Mrs. Lucas was false. Therefore, Mr. Lucas might have just asked his wife to take it without her understanding of the information. Also, there is insufficient evidence that the wife knew the message she was carrying was true or false. The appellants therefore raised an issue that s. 300 and 301 of the codes were against the constitution and applied the Oakes test on s. 300. On intervening, Justice Hrabinsky found that s. 300 was unconstitutional and had not been appealed. The appellants were imprisoned for the guilt of defamatory libel under s. 300. Mr. Lucas was sentenced to prison for two years, and Mrs. Lucas for 22months.
The appellants appeal to the court for conviction and sentence. Still, the Appeal for conviction disagreed, and the Appeal for a penalty was allowed where the period of imprisonment was reduced to 18 months for Mr. Lucas and 12 months for Mrs. Lucas.
Court’s Decisions and Reasoning
Regarding the legal issue raised on whether s. 298, 300, and 301 of codes violate s. 2(b) and s.7 of the charter, the court came up with the decision that freedom of expression and protection of people’s reputation is essential; hence accorded as court’s code of ethics. Section 298, 299, and 300 impairs the freedom and rights guaranteed in section 2b of the charter; therefore, Hrabinsky noted that it should be justified in part 1 of the letter. Also, At some point, section 298,299 and 300 impairs the article 2b right. Section 301 was considered unconstitutional, and no appeal had been taken. The appellants believed that the parts contained vague laws, which was not the case according to the rules at the court. The judges proved that section 298 contains a definition of defamatory libel. The appellants stated that the crown had failed to confirm that the message was false, and the court of Appeal concluded that it contained all elements that are essential beyond any reasonable doubt.
The message Mrs. Lucas was carrying on the placard fall in section 298 and 299 which talks about protection of people’s reputation and according to the court Mr. and Mrs. Lucas wanted to ruin the status of the police officer. Mr. and Mrs. Lucas had already read the message in the document; therefore, it was evident that they knew the police officer was not involved in the case; instead, they wanted to ruin their reputation. According to the court, there were two statements that they were looking up to. The first was whether the appellants wished to destroy the status of the police officers and whether they knew that the message carried was true or false. The sections also contain protection of reputation and freedom of speech as well as protection from malicious assault. At the trials, Mr. and Mrs. Lucas had insufficient evidence; therefore, knowledge of falsity in their information was considered. The court finally stated that the appellants wanted to ruin the reputation of the police officer by ensuring that he loses his job and be jailed.
Dissenting Judgement
L’HEUREUX-DUBE agreed with McLachlin J on the Canadian freedom and rights in the protection from reputation. McLachlin J agreed with Cory J that s. 2b protect defamatory libel, and that defamatory libel can cause long-lasting injuries. Therefore defamatory libel should be valued. Cory J state that section 298,299 and 300 of code are constitutional since it protects the rights of the people. Major JJ and McLachlin J think that Oakes analysis influences the value of the expression. Cory J stated that for limitations to be proved in a charter, the Oakes test should be followed. Some differ from Cory J’s statement about the Oakes analysis, and finally, Cory J stated that low freedom of expression leads to little protection of humans. Therefore good reputation should be valued more than any other thing to create comfortability in the environment. The appellants argued that all the sections were too broad, and the court stated that section 299c is the only section that is overbroad. The trial judge said that Mr. Lucas was the founder of all that was transpiring while Mrs. Lucas was the follower, but all end up being imprisoned for going against the constitutional law.
Legal Principles or Rules
Freedom of speech and protection of people’s reputation should be considered in a case to avoid diminishing the worth of people in a community. The public should easily interpret the information in the sections for better understanding and, therefore, explicit claims. Vague and broad statements should be avoided. The appeals should follow the constitutional law, and if not, it can raise other issues.