1,399
edits
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= August 14, 2020}} | |||
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = mentalhealth}} | {{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = mentalhealth}} | ||
Line 80: | Line 81: | ||
There is some discrepancy between the provinces as to whether one can be retroactively classified as a “high-risk accused”. In British Columbia, it has been found that applying a retroactive “high risk” designation to trials that occurred before the legislation came into effect is not unconstitutional (''Schoenborn'' 2015 BCSC 2254).). However, in Quebec it was decided that a retroactive application is unconstitutional (see ''R v CR'', 2015 JQ No 2448). | There is some discrepancy between the provinces as to whether one can be retroactively classified as a “high-risk accused”. In British Columbia, it has been found that applying a retroactive “high risk” designation to trials that occurred before the legislation came into effect is not unconstitutional (''Schoenborn'' 2015 BCSC 2254).). However, in Quebec it was decided that a retroactive application is unconstitutional (see ''R v CR'', 2015 JQ No 2448). | ||
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters8-14}} | {{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters8-14}} |
edits