When a trial judge rules that a law is unconstitutional, who is bound by that decision? In R v Sullivan, 2022 SCC 19, the SCC has made it crystal clear: these declarations are ordinary rulings of law, subject to ordinary rules of stare decisis.
As a bonus, the Court clarified the Spruce Mills test. The "plainly wrong" standard is, well, plainly wrong. We're stuck with the specific grounds enumerated in the original test.
Background
Sullivan is a criminal case. Its underlying facts are both grisly and sad; a detailed recounting isn't necessary. In brief, the case deals with two accused who, in unrelated incidents, committed violent assaults while under the influence of drugs. Their trials were held in front of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Both accused resorted to the "automatism" defence, arguing that they were so intoxicated their actions were involuntary, and thus they could not be convicted.
Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code blocks an accused from using the automatism defence where the offence involves assault. However, previous cases from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice have found s. 33.1 to be unconstitutional, and thus of no force or effect per s. 52 of the Charter. The two accused were convicted despite that precedent.
The main issue before the SCC was whether the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was bound by its own prior decisions on this point, and if so, to what extent they were bound. Should the court have treated s. 33.1 as if it...
