Supreme Court narrowly rejects ALS argument on the unconstitutionality of restrictions on access to conditional sentences

The Supreme Court issued its decision in R v Sharma. The case was a constitutional challenge to restrictions on access to conditional sentences by Indigenous offenders. The Court ruled 5 – 4 against the arguments brought by Ms. Sharma, ALS 17 other interveners. 

​The Supreme Court issued its decision in R v Sharma. The case was a constitutional challenge to restrictions on access to conditional sentences by Indigenous offenders. The Court ruled 5 – 4 against the arguments brought by Ms. Sharma, ALS 17 other interveners.  ALS has been involved with the case since it started at the Ontario Superior Court in 2016. The loss at the Court makes it even more important for Parliament to pass Bill C-5, which will undo some of the restrictions on access to conditional sentences and remove some mandatory minimum sentences (though the Bill should go further)

You can read ALS’ factum in the case here.
You can view the oral argument at the Supreme Court in March 2022 here -  ​ALS appears at 2 hours 28 minutes.